ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by
WILLIAM  RADDE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York
ANGELL, ENGEL & HEWITT, Printers, 1 Spruce-st.
~vW                 WvvvWvv



TO
WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT
THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS OF
THE LIVING AUTHORS OF AMERICA)
WHO HAS GIVEN THE
POWERFUL SUPPORT OF HIS GENIUS TO THE GREAT LAW OF
"SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURANTUR,"
THIS REFUTATION OF A SUPERFICIAL AND MENDACIOUS
ATTACK UPON THAT LAW.
IEI -3eopectfuIu Irncrtibeb,
BY HIS ADMIRER AND OBEDIENT SERVANT,
E. E. MARCY.



PREFACE.
THE extraordinary advances made by the homeeopathic principles of medicine, have induced in the
last two years an opposition unprecedented for activity, earnestness, and virulence. On their first promulgation in America, while they had the character
of novelty, and few except disciples had any definite
acquaintance with- them, two or three of the leading
physicians of the allopathic school attacked them in
pamphlets, in one case at least remarkable for a ready
wit and -most felicitous manner. It will be understood that we refer to Dr. Holmes. Since the publication of his trifling, superficial, but brilliant essay,
the master minds of the Old School, probably from a
more familiar acquaintance with the subject, and a
conviction that "discretion," -in this case, was "the
best part of valor," have -generally been silent, and
the attacks upon the Philosophical Method of Cure



PREFACE.                    Xiii
student is put down by logic something like what
follows:
"James. What's that you say? this great masterly world is round,
and turns round every day? You're a fool! The world's as flat as a
pancake. Why if what you tell is the case, how happens it that all the
water is n't spilt out of my mill-pond every night? "
Here was a show of logic, a show of wit; it was all
very plausible to the objector, and to persons of his
calibre; it is parallel with the opposition to the principle in medicine, similia similibus czrantucr, which
is above the comprehensions of the vulgar, as it is
destructive of the professional advantages and reputations of the adherents of the rapidly decaying practice of the immethodical, inconsistent, and dangerous
traditional dogmas which it is destined to supersede.
The following chapters have been very hastily prepared, amid the anxieties of a most arduous professional occupation, but it will be found that they fully
meet, and, it is trusted, satisfactorily answer the
trivial criticisms and unscrupulous misstatements of
an author who has chosen by exhibitions of audacity
and a want of conscience to challenge such consideration as he would in vain attempt to secure by a legiti
mate trial of his strength, in fair controversy.
A  Roman matron being inquired of as -to her



XLV                PREFACE.
jewels, presented her children.  We emulate the
noble example of Cornelia; and although we have
condescended for once to enter the lists with a
Worthington Hooker, for. the purpose -of refuting his
calumnies, we have far greater satisfaction in pointing to the numerous families in which the Hahnemannic practice is accepted, for demonstrations, in
vigorous and unimpaired constitutions, of the truth
of a system which preserves in their original beauty
and power natures which a beneficent Creator designed for constant happiness and usefulness.
E. E. MARCY, M.D.
NEw-YORK, March 20, -1852.



Xv1                     CONTENTS.
PAaE
Hahnemann —Provings by other homceopathists-Homceo.
pathic Materia Medica —Manner in which it is made upOpposition of the old school to drug provings-Honorable
exceptions-Dunglison-Pereira-Paris-Justness of their
remarks upon the subject.... 36
CH'APTER III.
EXAMINATION OF THE HOM(EOPATHIC LAW -OF
CURE.
Dr. Hooker's-ignorance of the homeopathic system —Proofs
of-it-Action of drugs-Illustrated from the OrganonHomoeopathy attacks diseased parts alone —Allopathy attacks healthy parts-SyJdenham-His pathology and treatment-Ancient and modern Allopathy contrasted-Fallacies
of Dr. Hooker respecting the use of camphor in choleraMisapplication of similia similibus curantur-Allopathic
use of similia-Drug provings confirmed by pathological
facts-lExperiments of Flourens, Majendie, Brodie, Miiller,
and Wilson-Homeeopathic law of cure claimed for Hippocrates-Hooker versus Hahnemann, on the mode of conducting experiments-The working and the indolent men
of the profession compared.... 44
CHAPTER IV.
EXAMINATION OF DOCTRINES AND DOSES.
Susceptibilities of diseased parts-The attenuations to be
employed-Action of imponderables illustrated-A few of
the precepts of Homceopathy-Allopathic and homaeopathic
practice contrasted —Range of doses employed by the two
schools examined-Large and small doses-Mode of action
similar-Identity' of drugs never destroyed-Syllogism re



CONTENTS.                     XVii
PAGE
specting raising a weight by a rope and an invisible filament of one —Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology-A
knowledge of them essential to the homceopath-Allopathic pathology not reliable-Reasoning on false dataContradictions of Dr. Hooker in commenting on crude and
attenuated drugs-Use of camphor in cholera-Influence
of Homceopathy in reducing allopathic doses.. 60
CHAPTER. V.
THE INCONSISTENCIES OF ALLOPATHY AND HER
ADVOCATES.
Arguments against Homceopathy —Their unique characterWonderful medicine box found in New York-Two sides
to it-Definition of modern Allopathy-Illustrations of itAttempted appropriation of similia-Case of Dr. RodgersDifferent combinations of Allopathy brought into practical
operation-Allopathy prescribes for the name of the disease,
Homosopathy for symptoms-Good Allopathy and bad Allopathy-Who can distinguish them-Dr. Hooker's opinions of Homceopathic Physicians-Feelings which have
prompted it-Statistics of hommeopathists-Their reliability-Opinion of Dr. Forbes of Homceopathy —Ex parte
statement of M. Andral-His admirers advised to consult
_.Esop's Fables-A course of study necessary in order to
test Homceopathy fairly.                             78
CHAPTER VI.
HOM(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY CONTRASTED.
Estimate of Hahnemann-Mode of making up this estimateFirst appearance of Hahnemann-Corfdition of medicine at
the time-Proneness of Allopathy to theorize-This course



XViii                   CONTENTS.
PAGE
avoided by Hahnemann-Experiments upon his own-.person-Risks encountered in making them-Noble'traits of
Hahnemnnn-Opinion of able allopathists respecting himHomceopathy cannot be amalgamated with AllopathyReasons why not-Allopathic verdicts upon medical doetrines' —Remarkable illustrations of them- All innovations
crushed-Baglivi and Hoffmann-Diversified, combinations
of allopathy exposed-Presen t and past opinions comparedInconsistencies of the Old School-Allopathy of 1587,
1703, 1707, 1714, 1797, 1800, 1852-Instincts of modern
Allopathy-A-llopathic verdicts declined-Other verdictsReasons why Homceopathy.is not universally investigatedSome Old School gentlemen_ in the right track-Medical
radicalism-What is it?-P6litical radicalism-Contrasted
with medical radicalism.....      102
CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.
Intolerance of medical men-Slow advancement of medicineReasons for it-Medical inquisitions-Not now permittedPoints at issue between the Schools-Misunderstood by
Physicians-Homceopathy especially noticed recently-Its
condition inAmerica now, compared with that of twentyfive years ago —Quotation from Dr. Curtis —Present condition of Homceopathy in Europe-Also in France, Germany,
&c.-Dr. Tessier-Homceopathy approved by the ClergyReproaches for exercising their own judgments upon the
subject.    1......      36



REPLY TO DR, HOOKER
ON
H'O M CE O P A T H Y.
CHAPTER I.
EXAMINATION OF ATTENUATED SUBSTANCES IN CONNECTION
WITH ALLOPATHIC ARITHMETIC.
HOM(EOPATHY has now been before the public for
more than half a:century. It has been introduced
into every part of the civilized world;, its principles
have always been clearly announced, and wherever
its practical value'has been fairly tested, whether in
public hospitals or in private practice, the results
have uniformly demonstrated it to be more successful
than any, practice of medicine which has hitherto obtained. The system has, gradually~ but steadily, continued to extend throughout the area of civilization,
until it has enlisted among its earnest advocates a
very large number of the most intelligent of every
country.' Attacked, and misrepresented as it has ever
been, by the mercenary physicians and apothecaries of
2



20        HOMCOPATRY VS. ALLOPATHY.
the Old School, it has still advanced triumphantly
through all the storms of calumny, bitter-invective,
and malignant hate, which have been continually
poured upon it. It will ever continue to advance
until its momentous truths shall be universally recognised, and mankind be forever released from the
blighting curse of Allopathy, and its -death-dealing
poisons.
Among the thousand and one attacks which have
been made upon Homceopathy and its advocates, we
have recently noticed one entitled, "' Homaceopathy, an
Ezxamination into its Doctrines and Evidences; by
Worthington Haooker, X1. D."  Like every other
attack which has been made upon the system, it is a
mere tissue of misrepresentations, and tricky artifices
to mislead the ignorant and unthinking -from its real
doctrines, and, to divert attention from the actual
points at issue between the schools. With intelligent minds, such poor sophistries and silly attempts
at " reviewing evidences," of course carry with them
their own refutation, and recoil upon the heads
of those whose cupidity or malice have prompted them
to issue them. But as there is a class of persons who
may possibly peruse this essay, under the supposition
that it is an honest exposition of the Homceopathic
doctrine, we shall take occasion to strip the author of
the flimsy web with which he has invested himself, and
display him to the world, a pettifogging perverter of
facts, a calumniator of a large class of judicious schdlars, who are his superiors. in all respects, and a mere
panderer to the hate, malice, and medical demagogism
of the more contemptible of his school.



SNFINITEIMAIL DOsES..          23
his'Organon,' a work which is universally regarded,
by homceopathists, as the great:text-book of medicine" (page 15).
The writer here gives a summary of iahnemann's
conclusions, and then observes that,, "in this summary,
or analysis of the homceopathic method, (as he calls
it),the reader will-notice that there is nothing said
about infinitesimal doses. And it'is remarkable that
there is not the slightest hint upon this subject in the
Organon, till we reach the 204th'p-'page, though the
whole book contains but 300 pages, and then it is
alluded to only in a note, and that ~rier'ely incidentally.
Almost all he does say' about it,'frQm begining to end,
is said in notes. In the text, it is'not'treated of at all
in any explicit and'circumstantial manner, but is
barely hinted at" (page 20).
Why,.then, in the name of reason, with these facts
staring you in the face, have you'taxed your calculating powers so enormously upon: this "incidental"
and unimportant point? Why have you not taken
the'" great text-book of the homceopath" as you found
it, and criticized it honestly and fairly, instead of
selecting a proposition which is only "barely hinted at
in the Organon," to vent upon it your hatred against
a rival school?
We take' the liberty of calling into requisition once
more the mathematical genius, the irresistible logic,
and the wonderful acumen, of this shining light of
Allopathy, who presents himself so -confidently as its
champion. We desire-him to take into consideration the following substances, which "-homceopaths,
scientific men, clergymen, etc.," really' believe to



24         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
possess some power of action on the human body, and
to describe to us their weight and bulk, as well as their
chemical and physical characteristics. As- the value
or absurdity of all things is to be measured by the
"plain common sense,"-and the vast comprehension of
this Connecticut gentleman, will he hasten to enlighten
us' upon these subjects, so that we may no longer be
deluded by absurd notions of such " loose reasoners"
as Newton, Davy, Locke, Herschell, etc.? 
i. It is well known that when vegetable substances
are subjected to a certain amount of heat and moisture, the atoms or molecules of which they are composed are' set free, and become diffused in infinitesimal proportions through the atmosphere, for miles
in extent, so that any individual inhaling this air,
will get a dose'of these atoms of sufficent strength to
poison his body, and cause intermittent' fever. These
are some of nature's high attenuations, and have been
termed by. medical writers, miassmata.We beg leave to summon this -quick oracle, whose'close reasoning," and extraordinary mathematical,
and chemical genius is destined to direct the judgments of " intelligent scientific men, clergymen, etc.,"
to display on this point all his calculating powers and
to give us tthe weight in figures of a quantity of these
miasmatic atoms sufficient to infect a large army, or
if this puzzles him, the inhabitants of the whole universe, with intermittent fever; to inform us of some
chemical test by which we may detect these atoms in
the immense space throughout which they are diffused; to give us some tangible and comprehensible
idea of their physical properties, so that we may really



nMPOiDEBBAI3E SU:STA~CES.        25
know that such things do exist as miasmatca, and that
they are not the mere fanciful imaginings of a "'homceopath, a scientific man, or a clergyman!" Will
he put them under the lens of his most powerful
microscope, and instruct us -loose- reasoners" respecting their size, shape, and general appearance?
What if such insignificant chemists as Lavoisier,
Berzelius, Davy, Black, Dumas, and Faraday, have
repeatedly attempted to detect chemically these miasmatic particles without success? doubtless these men
were "loose reasoners," and were not blessed with
the keen, analyzing powers of the gentleman from
Norwich!
What if such intelligences as those of Newton,
Euler, Dalton and Euclid could not, either'by their
own, or even " Iomceopathic arithmetic," calculate
their weight,- dimensions, and shape, and therefore
decided to consider and to call them imponderable,
(i. e. having no weight,)-why, let it be remembered
that Worthington Hooker, M.D., of Connecticut, was
not then in'existence!
What if those half-learned astronomers, IHerschell
-and Chevalier, have no lenses sufficiently powerful to
see these vegetable atoms —nature's homoeopathic attenuations-d-oes it follow that the keen sight of the
Connecticut champion of Allopathy should not see
them? Before his next essay appears, we may expect
that he will put a dose of a high homceopathic attenuaation into.one scale, and a dose of fever miasm into the
other, and gravely inform us which -sinks the beam.
But suppose the gigantic. intellect of our critic
should fail in all these tests-suppose his " arithme



IMPONDERABLE SUBSTANICES.        27
and scales are both out of order, give us some delicate
chemical test, so. that we may know that contagion
and small-pox are not humbugs. Or, perhaps, it would
be more agreeable to the gentleman to calculate the
weight and bulk of another of nature's high attenuations-as, for example, the molecules of which the
infection of Asiatic cholera is supposed to consist.
Let us have the weight of all these molecules indeed
which have existed since the world began, or we shall'be obliged to-consider them as "humbugs," —mere
phanitasies of "homceopathists, scientific men, and
clergymen!"  Let no one commit the absurdity of
supposing that any material substance.-can possess
power, or in: any way affect.the. human structures,
unless its weight and dimensions can be accurately
calculated in figures, by the " arithmetic" of Worthington Hooker, M. D., of Connecticut, the champion
of modern Allopathy.
3. But it is possible, instead of displaying his " towering arithmetic" upon the infinitesimal particles of
vegetable, animal, and mineral substances that he
would prefer to " cypher" on material substances of a
different class. As the recent experiments of Professor Andrew Crosse, in England, have conclusively
demonstrated that water and other liquids can be so
highly charged with electrical particles as to.render
them powerfully antiseptic when taken into the human stomach, as well as to give them new and potent
chemical properties, will our phenomenon illuminate
the world by a mathematical, chemical, and physical
description of electrical molecules? We trust that
2*



28         HOM(EOPATHIY VS. ALLOPATHIY.
the " arithmetic" will: prove successful, or electricity
must henceforth be considered a "humbug," and all
those old fashioned individuals who believe in it, like
Franklin, Dufay, Priestley, Gay Lussac, Volta, Morse,
and Page, must be ranked with those " deluded loose
reasoners," the " homceopathists, scientific men, and
clergymen."  Come, 0 "close reasoning" champion
of Allopathy, weigh us out the charge of electricity it
would require to rend a world to fragments. You
have presumed t6o reduce all phenomena within the
scope and appreciation of your own infallible intellect
-you, who deny the existence of power in attenuated
atoms, unless you can see them, smell them, taste
them, weigh them, and clutch them in your brawny
hands, tell the " loose reasoning" and benighted world
something- about the physical qualities of these electrical molecules!
Would you prefer to experiment on the particles of
matter which are continually escaping from the magnet? Baron Reichenbach, an allopathist, who has recently published a very learned work upon this subject,.not only asserts that magnetic atoms continually escape
from magnets in definite directions, but that these
atoms may actually be seen in a dark room, by sensitive persons. We beg leave to ask the mathematical
gentleman of Connecticut to reply in his next attack
on homeoopathy, to this reasonable query: Suppose a
million, a billion, or a sextillion of the most powerful
horseshoe magnets ever made, should be kept in full
operation for a period.dating from the creation of Adam
to the probable final destruction of the world, and that
all the magnetic atoms escaping them should be col



CATALYTIC ACTIoN.            29
lected together, what, according to your " arithmetic,"
would be their weight and bulk?
If the gentleman from Norwich will take his compass and go to any part of the world, he will find the
needle invariably pointing towards the magnetic pole,
thus showing that the molecules which escape from
this great magnetic deposit pervade the whole universe, exercising an attraction under all circumstances
towards the'parent source. At the pole itself, it was
ascertained by Sir John Ross, that the needle uniformly points directly downward, or perpendicularly
to the surface of' the earth. At every other point on
the globe, the needle forms some sort of an angle
with the pole, unless affected by local causes. Will
this monster of science inform us how'much this universe of molecules weighs?
While our allopathic opponents are attempting to
ridicule the idea of power in imponderable agents,
and other phenomena which they cannot understand,
and which their heathen idols, Hippocrates and Galen,'forgot to teach, why do they not cry out, " humbug," against another mysterious and inexplicable
force which has recently been introduced to the- scientific world by Liebig. and his cotemporaries, and which
has been termed catalysts.?  Why do they not perpersuade some of their mathematical geniuses to  cypher" on the subject, so that we may comprehend
the rationcale of catalytic action a
Modern chemists'have ascertained that the mere
contact or presence of minute quantities  f'certain
substances, with indefinitely large proportions of other
substances, communicate to the latter entirely new



CATALYTIC ACTION.             31
with another, effects transformations and developes
new properties in the latter without the slightest appreciable loss of weight, bulk, or chemical properties
of the former.
"It is remarkable," says Kane, "that this law of
catalysis, of which the simplest expression is, that
where two chemical substances are in contact, any
motion occurring among the particles of the one may
be communicated to the particles of the other, is4of a
more purely mechanical nature than any other principle as yet received in chemistry; and when more
definitely established by succeeding research, it may
be the basis of a- dynamical theory in chemistry."
"We must, at least, look upon these actions of catalysis, as tending towards a change in our ideas of
the nature of chemical affinity, which may before long
remodel the whole constitution of the science."
We might extend our queries, and "put sums" ad
infinitum, but knowing that there are limits, even to
such' comprehensive and analytic intellects as that
of Worthington Hooker, M.D., of Norwich, Connecticut, we pause,- for the present, for replies- to those
already offered.
~But- seriously, is not that man a pitiable object, who,
at this enlightened period, has- the presumption and
folly to measure the powers and properties of substances by bulk and weight a When the most obtuse
intellect, by moderate observation and- reflection, may
see that nearly all of the most active and potent material agents with whigch we are acquainted are imponderable-absolutely incapable of being appreciated by
any mathematical, chemical, or other material test



34         IOMMLEOPATIY vs. AILOPATH.
and 19th centuries, we again deny most emphatically
that it has any necessary connection with the great
homweopathic law of cure, similia similibus curantur.
The question of doses was a mere matter of.experience on the part of Hahnemann, gradually acquired
by a long series of observations, some time after the
discovery and public announcement of the main doctrines of Homceopathy.. Hahnemann witnessed and
deplored the general routine of indiscriminate drugging, with mixtures composed of almost every variety
of poison, and endeavored to lessen the evil and to
attain more accuracy and certainty, by proving drugs
on healthy persons, in order to ascertain their specific
action, and then to prescribe them  singly. Until
the time of HIahnemann physicians had striven with
each other for the palm of giving the largest quantities of drugs, the more powerful the better, without
absolutely destroying. their poor patients. The discoverer of homceopathy adopted the opposite course,
and used all his' sagacity to ascertain how small a.
quantity of medicine would suffice to cure a disease.
In accomplishing this object, he had no hypothesis to
sustain-no ancient heathen dogma to bolster up-no
prejudices to gratify; but his sole objects were truth,
and the welfare of his fellow.creatures. Guided by
such laudable motives, and uninfluenced by. the
jealousies and calumnies of professional rivals and interested apothecaries, he devoted his whole energies,
mental and physical, to the accumulation of facts,
with the view of establishing a rational system  of
medicine. How much he has done towards attaining his end, we leave for others to decide.



VIEW. OF HOM(EOPATHY.          35
In perusing the mendacious attack of this Connecticut defamer, the uninformed reader is induced to
suppose that he, may- be honest, and that he really
aims to give the uMiblic a true representation of the
homceopathic doctrine and its evidences. With a
degree of hypocrisy.which would do credit to the
most shrewd Jesuit, and with a considerable amount of
poor cunning, the author has selected a few isolated
passages from  the writings of Hahnemann, which
have no bearing upon his doctrine of cure, and held
them up as a " view of Hommeopathy."  IHe likewise professes to give a view of the system, as announced by other standard authors. Farther on we
shall quote from these writers proofs of the entire
lack of foundation for these assumptions.



FROVINGS OF TA EMANNh.          37
but as they may be seen by some who are ignorant
of the doctrines of Homceopathy, we deem it proper
to refute them at the onset.
The present writer has personally beheld and perused a large number of original provings by Hahnemann, in his own handwriting, detailing minutely the
circumstances under which the different drugs were
taken, the exact sizes of the doses used, and the symptoms arising from these doses. All these facts are de-.
scribed by Hahnemann in their regular order, and
with a systematic precision and minuteness unparalleled in such investigations. - In these provings the
drugs were employed both in the crude form, in
large doses, and in an attenuated state, in order that
their entire effects might thus be thoroughly displayed. Indeed we were repeatedly informed by
Madame Hahnemann, the wife of the founder of our
system, that her husband had often been made seriously ill for months at a time in consequence of his
experiments with large doses-of crude-drugs. Nearly
all of his'earlier provings were made with crude
medicines, in various doses; but afterwards reflecting
that the efforts of nature are always directed to the
speedy expulsion from the system of noxious substances, by vomiting, purging, or some other excretory process, he deemed it essential that small doses
should also be employed, in order that they might be
retained for a longer period,. and thus afforded time
to manifest their,entire pathogeneses.
Hahnemann has always inculcated the importance
of proving drugs, in both a crude and attenuated state,
and in a variety of doses. In every proving which



MODE OF PROVING DRUGS.            39
simple and pure form. As to indigenous plants, the
juice is expressed and mixed with a small quantity
of alcohol, in order to preserve it from corruption.
With regard to foreign plants they are to be pulverized or prepared as spirituous tinctures, and mixed
with a certain quantity of water previous to administration.  Salts and gums, however, ought'not to be
dissolved in water till the moment they are to be
used.  If a plant cannot be procured but in its dry
state, and if its powers are naturally feeble, it-may
be tried in the form of an infusion; that is to say,
after having cut it up small, boiling water is poured
upon it in order to extract its virtues. The infusion
ought to be drunk immediately after its preparation,
and while it is still warm, because all the juices of
plants, and all vegetable infusions to which no alcohol
is added, pass rapidly into fermentation and corruption, and thereby lose their medicinal virtues."-(Organon, p. 143.)
" Sometimes a person apparently delicate is not at
all affected by a medicine that is known to be very
powerful, though administered in moderate doses,
while other substances that are much weaker make a
tolerable imhpression'on him. At the same time there
are individuals of robust constitutions who experience
very considerable morbid symptoms from medicinal
agents that are apparently mild,. and, on the other'hand, they are likewise but little affected by others
that are powerful. But as it can never be known beforehand which of these two cases will occur, it is
proper that each should commence with a small dose,
and be afterwards increased progressively if deemed



40         HOMEOPATtY'VS. ALLOPATRfY.
requisite. Advancing, from day to day, to higher
and still higher doses."-(Organon, p. 145.)
So far then as the provings of Hahnemann are
concerned, although they were chiefly made some forty
years ago; when IHomcoopathy was in its infancy, it is
evident that the statements and- inferences published
by Dr. Hoosker are utterly false and contemptible.
Thie writer even contradicts himself upon this point
as he does upon many others.  On page 33,'he
remarks in regard to the provings that "there is no
formal set of rules prescribed, and we are left to infer
for the most part what the principles are which govern
observers in conducting these' provings,' as they are
termed."
On page 51, we find, "All agree as to the mode of
conducting the provings."
We have personally seen and examined carefully
the greater part of Hlahnemann's original manuscripts,
which are still in- possession of his wife, at Paris, and
can therefore vouch for the several facts to which -we
have alluded.
In regard to the vast number of provings made by
the disciples of HIahnemann, within the last fifty years,
we have only-to remark, that.it is a fact perfectly
well known to those who have taken any pains to
-investigate the subject, that in all instances the doses
have been specified, the symptoms have been carefully noted as they occurred, and all circumstances
connected with the experiments have been minutely
detailed.
With reference to the symptoms which have been
adopted into our Materia MIedica, the following course
has been pursued:



42          HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
ers who flourished during the dark ages. The idea of
administering medicines singly, and in a pure form, is
supposed to be particularly absurd and unscientific,
and is sneered at accordingly. So thought those
respectable ancients who founded Allopathy, and
who deemed it essential to mix together as many
articles as possible in one prescription, in order that
some one of them should hit the disease! One very
scientific modern Allopathic physician had a favorite
recipe consisting of 100 different ingredients of every
possible description; like opiates, cathartics, tonics,
antiphlogistics, stimulants, sedatives, acids, alkalis,
etc., all mixed together with the most perfect disregard of every chemical or other rule. His argument
was, that'" out of so many dissimilar and potent drugs,
there must surely be one which would hit the nail on
the head and cure the malady."
The same theory is now practically adopted by the
great body of Allopathists. They scout the idea of
ascertaining the pure effects of medicines upon' the
human'organism, but prefer random  shots with a
great number of articles, with different properties.
By this course, they are pretty sure to hit the patient
effectually, whether the disease is reached or not.
We have the pleasure, however, of recording the
truth, that many distinguished Allopathists have, in
late'years fully recognised the importance of drug.
provings on the healthy, as a guide to their application in disease. Such facts are of course bitter
pills for such medical bigots as Dr. Hooker, but we
proceed to.administer them, as follows:
Professor Dunglison, in his work on "New Reme



IMPORTANCE OF DRUG PROVINGS.         43
dies," page seventh, writes thus: " To treat disease
methodically and effectively, the nature of the -actions
of the living tissues, in both the healthy and morbid
conditions, must be correctly appreciated; the effects
which the articles of the Materia Medica are capable
of exerting under both those conditions, mrust be
known from accurate observation, and not until then
can the practitioner prescribe with any well founded
prospect of success."
Dr. Paris, in his Materia Medica, remarks that
" observation and experiment upon the effects of
medicine are liable to a thousand: fallacies, unless
they are carefully repeatedunder thie various circumstances of'health and disease, in different climates,
and on different constitutions.'
Pereira assures us, "; that in order to ascertain the
action of remedial agents on the living body, it is
necessary that we examine their influence both in
healthy and dqiseased conditions. For,'by the first we
learn the positive or actual power of a medicine over
the body; while by the second, we see how that
power is modified by the presence of disease." (Per.
Mat. Med. and Ther., vol. 1 p. 126.)
The justness of these observations will be instantly
recognised'by every man of common sense and common honesty. The intolerant and ignorant aspersers
of Hahnemann, will continue, as a matter of course,
to vent their angry spite against this_ as well as his
other reformations, but their simple declamation will,
as heretofore, be disregarded.
3



CHAPTER III.
EXAMINATION OF TIE HO](EOPATHIC LAW OF CURE.
IN this chapter Dr. Hooker professes to " examine
the doctrines of Homeeopathy;" and it is here that he
displays, in a most pitiable manner, his utter ignorance of the whole system as taught by Hahnemann
and his followers.  For example, he says "if the
*doctrine, s8inicta s8imilibus curacntur be the 8ole law
of therapeutics, the totality of effects produced by
any article in the healthy,. should be a sure indication
that this article will relieve a similar set of symptoms
whenever they appear in the sick.  For example,
opium produces in the healthy a state- of insensibility
and somnolency, and ipecac. produces nausea and
vomiting. Therefore, if the homeopathic law be the
sole law of cure, opium  should invariably relieve
insensibility and sompnolency in the sick, and ipecac.
should invariably relieve nausea and vomiting. It
matters not that they sometimes do this in some particular cases: to prove the -law to be the sole law
they should alwayl do it." (p. 54.)
According to the writer's own confession a remedy
in order to be truly homceopathic in disease, must
be Selected which will cover the totality of the symptoms. In. other words that that medicine alone is ho



48         HOMCEOPASTHY VS. ALLOPATItY.
state in nature that is directly contrary to this primitive effect, the vital power then seeks to gain the ascendancy by destroying the change that has been
operated' upon it from. without (by the action of the
medicine), for which, it substitutes its' own natural
state (reaction).Y'
" For example, somnolence and stupor are rimitive effects of opium, which continue ten, twelve, or
more hours, according to the size of the dose; sleeplessness and nervous excitement always succeed this
state, constituting the secondary efect of the drug,"
" Constipation, excited by opiumsh(primitive effect), is
followed.by diarrhoea (secondary effect); and evacuations produced by purgatives (primitive effect), are
succeeded by costiveness,which lasts several days
(secondary effect). It is thus that the vital power,
in its- reaction, opposes to the primitive effects of
strong doses of medicine which operate powerfully
on the healthy state of the body, a' condition that is
directly opposite, whenever it is able to do so."
"It is true that even small doses produce primitive
effects that are perceptible; but the- reaction made
by the living organism never exceeds the degree that
is requisite for the re-establishment of health." (Organon, p. 112-13.)
The homeopath, therefore, always attacks the disease itself, by producing with his remedies, such -impressions upon the disordered structures as shall annihilate the original morbid action, and substitute in
its stead a temporary drug action, which the recuperative forces of the system always speedily remove,
if the malady be curable. The causes of disease are,



50          HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
be likely to ensue. In a word, he knows that nearly
all diseases render the parts affected so extremely
susceptible to impressions of every kind, that even infinitesimal doses of specific medicines produceemanifest primitive effects, and therefore if he administers
his remedies in a crude state, he is almost certain to
produce too violent effects, in the forms of medicinal aggravations, like those which Hahnemann first
observed from  the use of ordinary doses of crude
drugs.  From  necessity- therefore, and  not from
theory, the believer in Homceopathy uses small doses,
in- order to avoid the most serious medicinal actions.
In regard to the doses, one rule obtains among all
jitdicious homceopathists, viz..: to give a sufficient
quantity of the drug to cure the disease, with as
little detriment to the healthy parts, and to the general system, as possible. The homceopath has medicines of every grade of strength, from the saturated
tinctures and alkaloids to the highest dilutions; but
as he has to deal with morbid conditions, totally different from those in health, and with inflamed tissues,
so refined in sensibility that light, noise, or even
mental emotions, become powerful disturbing agents,
he finds it necessary, from experience, to adapt his
doses to the altered sensibility of the disordered parts,
that he may avoid unnecessarily active influences.
Is not this philosophical, reasonable, and perfectly in
accordance with common sense?
If allopathists, with their empirical, contradictory,
and pernicious notionis, choose to combat diseases by
inflaming healthy parts, and filling the systems of
their patients with large quantities of deleterious



56         HOMEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATfY.
After commenting upon the fallacy of trusting to hypotheses and theories in founding a system of medical
practice-a course which has been -pursued Mup to the
present moment by allopathists-the writer proceeds:
"s Not only is it untrue that similia similibus corantur
is the sole law of therapeutics, but there is no proof
that it is even one among the many laws of cure
which are employed in the removal of disease."
If Dr. Hooker will examine the standard authors
of Allopathy he will-find that opium and alcoholic
stimulants, when used to excess by the healthy, produce delirium tremens; and if he continues his examination he will see that these are the chief allopathic remedies for the cure of that disease.  If Dr.
Hooker will swallow an allopathic dose of rhubarb in
health, he will experience, in a few hours, a perturbation in his bowels, attended by copious, loose evacuations, with a sour smell, etc.; if he consults his books
he will observe that rhubarb is highly commended
for diarrhceas of this character.  If Dr. Hooker will
drug himself for some time with mercury he will get
an ulcerated mouth and throat, pains in his bones,
foul breath, augmented sensibility of the body, etc.;
if he again consults his books he will see that mercury
is the only specific advised for the same group of symptoms which arise from syphilis. If Doctor Hooker will
experiment upon'-himself with 30 or 40 grains- of
ipecacuanha, he will probably feel a nausea at the
stomach which will cause him  to expel the article
with profound indignation; his allopathic authorities
will inform him that this- drug, in, doses of one-sixth
of a grain, is one of the most important remedies to



AmLOPATIO USE OF SMILA.          57
cure nausea and vomiting. If Dr. Hooker will take
large and repeated doses of balsam copaibae in health
he will experience symptoms quite similar to-gonorrhcea: can he ever have heard of this as an allopathic remedy for that malady? Calomel, in repeated
allopathic doses, causes, according to Pereira, dark
or greenish mucus, and bloody stools, with griping
and tenesmus: is there any medicine more frequently
used by old-school practitioners to cure these symptoms than calomel?  Topical applications to the
healthy urethra of a strong solution of nitrate of
silver give rise to symptoms which can scarcely be
distinguished from gonorrhoea: if Dr. Hooker consults his " Ricord" he will find that this is the most
prominent local remedy for the cure of that disorder.
This same homeopathic law of similia applies with
full force to the' topical treatment now so generally
adopted by allopathists for the cure of diseases of
the mucous membranes of the throat and bronchia,
and of the utero-genital structures.
We might multiply such examples ad inkizitum,
and prove, from the best old-school authorities, not
only that these homeopathic remedies produce in
health symptoms similar to those'which they'cure,
but that they give rise to pathological changes similar
to those caused -by the action of natural diseases.
Those who are familiar with the physiological researches of Flourens, Majendie, Brodie, Miiller and
Wilson, with reference to'the specific operations of
opium, belladonna, mercury, stramonium, alcohol,
etc., upon men and -animals, will at once recognise
the truth of these remarks.



CHAPTER  IV.
EXAMINATION OF DOCTRINES AND DOSES.
IN his fourth chapter, Dr. Hooker again throws
himself into an extraordinary state of indignation respecting homceopathic doses.  He is exceedingly
provoked  that homceopaths generally  recognise
different degrees of susceptibility in the sick organism, and that they have the obstinacy to select medicines of such strength as may appear most appropriate to induce a cure speedily and safely.
He observes, at page 72, " if medicines produce in
infinitesimal doses such-effects as are attributed to
them, and if there- be such wide differences in the
susceptibilities of the sick, it must be very important
to fix upon exactly the right dose in each case. And
if an ifinnitesimal dose of a medicine, carefully prepared, with just the right amount of agitation and
trituration, be appropriate to a case, then it would
certainly be very injurious to the patient to give a
million of such doses at once."
The shallowness and sophistry of this entire extract renders a refutation  almost superfluous, as



PmIosoPIP  OF DOSES.            61
will be evident to all who reflect upon the operation
of morbific substances upon the human body. Thus,
a single inhalation of'the atmosphere of a room infected with infinitesimal atoms of smallpox or scarlet
fever contagion, is capable of giving rise to either of
these maladies -in their full force: according to Dr.
Hooker, "a million of such inhalations" ought to
demolish'the unfortunate breathers! A small particle of the virus of chancre, or of a smallpox pustule,
placed upon a denuded surface, produces the syphilitic ulcer or the variolous pustule, with all its attendant symptoms, but according to the " logical and
close-reasoning" Dr. Hooker, a million times this
amount of virus placed upon an exposed part, ought
instantly to convert the strongest man into a " greasespot." An individual passing rapidly through a
marshy district infected with infinitesimal miasmatic
atoms, becomes affected with intermittent fever:
according to the philosophical critic, should. this
individual by chance be detained in this infected
region for several weeks, he would get an intermittent
fever of such awful intensity that he would evaporate
into thin air by spontaneous combustion, or else be
converted into a human icicle from the severity of his
chills'!
But it is. unnecessary-to multiply examples to show
the absurdity of the modes of reasoning adopted by
our disingenuous opponents. If they would devote but
a tithe of that time to a candid and honest investigation of the great' truths of the homceopathic doctrine,' which they now expend in racking' their brains
to raise false issues and to invent sophistries and cal



THE TWO SCHOOLS CONTRASTED..65
reasonableness must commend itself to the judgments of candid men.
Let us now briefly contrast these homeopathic
precepts with those generally adopted by our Allopathic opponents in the treatment of disease, and see
on which side reason and truth lie.
Homceopathy addresses her remedies to those parts
alone which are actually dise'ased: Allopathy, in her
remedial measures, operates upon parts. which are
healthy.
Homoeopathy seeks to cure disease with as little
medicine as possible, in order that the organism shall
not suffer from serious medicinal diseases: Allopathy
employs enormous quantities of poisonous drugs for,the express purpose of creating artificial diseases in
healthy parts.
Homceopathy prescribes only for symptoms which
really exist: Allopathy prescribes for various groups
of symptoms under the same general name.
Homceopathy employs only those medicines which
have been carefully and repeatedly proved upon the
healthy:- Allopathy prescribes her violent drugs in
accordance with the traditions which have been
handed down from the sorcerers, the alchemists, and
the humoral pathologists of old.
Homceopathy recognises only a single law of cure,
and upon this law her whole system is founded: A1lopathy announces -numerous and' contradictory laws
both of theory and practice, but in her vague, and
empirical routine, adopts none of them.
Finally, Homceopathy relies solely upon the successful cures she accomplishes, for her prosperity and



636       IHOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
advancement: Allopathy, with no sound arguments to
sustain her, haunted by the ghosts of innumerable
victims which she has sent out of the world prematurely, and execrated by thousands of haggard living
beings whose constitutions have been ruined by her
destructive poisons, relies upon misrepresentations,
calumnies, collegiate persecutions, and impotent denunciations, to arrest the progress of her increasingly
powerful rival, and to retain the small influence she
still maintains over a portion of the lower classes.
After commenting at considerable length- upon the
wide range of doses employed by the homceopath; and
endeavoring to similate the laws which govern the
operations of imponderable -agents with those which
pertain to crude substances, Dr. Hooker arrives at'the
sage conclusion that " the range-of doses in Allopathy
is somewhat smaller than the range of doses in homceopathic practice."
We freely concede the truth- of.this observation,
and shall endeavor to adduce some reasons for this difference in "ranges."
We take it for granted that every man of-common
sense acknowledges -the vast powers of imponderable
agents, whether of vegetable, animal, or mineral origin. We suppose it will also be conceded, that the
laws which govern the actions of these agents, whether
operating chemically, morbifically, or medicinally, are
as yet entirely unknown, although ample observation
has demonstrated that they are as strongly pronounced
as those, which we observe in the reactions of ponderable substances.
The absurdity and sophistry, therefore, of entering



LARGE AND SMALL DOSES.            67
into arithmetical calculations, -and of alluding to differences in weight and bulk, when treating upon imponderable substances of all descriptions, will be apparent to the commonest intellect. We should consider the man an idiot who would be guilty of such folly
when writing or speaking of contagious or epidemic
substances, malaria, or the- molecules of electricity,
caloric,. and air; and he would certainly be no less
foolish who would attempt to bring his arithmetic or
his chemistry to bear upon other matters in this kind.
If, then, experience has taught the homceopathist
that a wide range of imponderable attenuations may
be used with advantage in his various therapeutical
measures, what. sensible man will have the presumption to gainsay the principle's utility?  Because the
crude doses of-Allopathy, which act mechanically,
chemically, or as corrosives, upon the delicate structures of the body: absolutely require to'be limited in
range, does it follow that the subtile and imponderable
doses ofl Homceopathy should be subjected to similar
regulations?
By sad experience, the old school physician finds
that he. cannot give more than.30 or 40 grains of quinine, daily, for several successive days, without killing
his patient.- If he prescribes only three or four grains
a day, he does, not often cure, but establishes a new
disease in the liver, which is superadded to that he attempts'.to cure. The process in this case is analogous
to that adopted in, France, in stuffing geese, so that
their liveis may become enlarged sufficiently to make
lpate de foi gras. His, range of doses is thus necessarily limited, for it would- be beneath his dignity to use
4



68         HOMICEOPATt Y VS. ALLOPATHY.
quinine in smaller doses than one grain, and he knows
it is pretty certain to kill if he exceeds thirty grains.
It would perhaps afford him infinite pleasure if he
could cram his patient with the entire contents' of
an apothecary's shop, but when he contemplates
such a course, a skeleton flits before him, and he desists.
In his use of calomel, the allopathist allows himself
more freedom. In New England, doses as small as
one-tenth of a grain are employed, and ten grains are
considered a full dose; but at the South and West,
calomel is given in doses of sixty and seventy grains,
and often repeated, until five and six hundred grains
have been taken, or'until the patient is' destroyed.
This is a pretty wide range, considering the nature of
the drug; and the discrepancy in the dosses of the
northern and southern allopathists, is somewhat notable; but the argument of the South is, that these
large doses:are not so apt to get into the blood as the
smaller doses of the North, and that therefore they are
less annoyed with those dreadful cases of necroses of
the bones, mercurial palsy, rheumatism, nodes, ulceration, gangrene, and sloughing of the gums, mouth,
and throat, loss of teeth, mercurial' erethism, mercurial
dysentery, etc., than are their northern brethren.
The allopathic range then. in the case of calomel,
is from one-tenth of a grain to sixty or seventy grains.
He cannot descend lower than the sixteenth of a grain,
because it would indicate a leaning towards homeeopathic doses,- which would ill become him; and he
cannot advance in the other direction for fear of murdering his patient. Professional expediency on the



UDE FND ATTENUATED DRUGS.         69
one hand, and necessity on the other, again govern
him.
With respect to other medicines, he is restrained by
the same causes.- On one side he beholds the small
doses of lomceopathy, and his self-conceit, his pride,
and his ignorant dislike of everything pertaining to
the new system, deter him from making any innovations in this direction. On the other hand, the stringent laws against direct murder and manslaughter,
serve to keep him  just within certain prescribed
bounds.
On page 76, we find this statement: "If both ordinary doses and'infinitesimal ones cure disease, they
must obviously do -it in different ways. The action
of the potentized infinitesimal upon the system'nust
be regulated ]by different principles from those which
govern the action of the same article in its crude form."
The absurdity of the assertion will at once be apparent, on the examination of a single substance, as
mercury, for example. This -mineral in any of its
ordinary crude forms, and in ordinary doses, causes
salivation, foetid breath, pains in the bones, etc.; if
it becomes diffused through the atmosphere in the
form of infinitesimal atoms, and these are taken into
the blood through the lungs, the same phenomena as
in the first instance present themselves-salivation,
feetid breath, etc.
Drugs, as we have before remarked, never lose
their identity or specific'modes of operation upon the
human tissues. By effecting changes in the forms of
drugs, we often develop latent properties, and thus
add much to their curative spheres; but during this



ATATOMY,_ PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY.    71
the air, or " trot it out" and make it perform according to his allopathic notions.
Again, at page 79, Dr. Hooker remarks: "  hey
(the homceopathists).as a body wholly neglect the study
of Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology.  These
have no place ind the science of their therapeutics."
Of course Dr.. Hooker knew, when he penned this
calumny, that he was uttering a very absurd as well as
wicked falsehood. On the very pages of most of the
homceopathic authorities he professes to have examined,'Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology" are
constantly treated of, and are always alluded to as
important auxiliaries in elucidating the homceopathic
theory and practice. Dr. HIooker knew that one of
the most eminent homzeopathic physicians in Europe,
Professor Henderson, actually occupied the chair of
Pathology in the University of Edinburgh, at the
time he made this infaimous assertion.  In the two
homceopathic medical colleges of this country, at
Philadelphia and Cleveland, "Anatomy, Physiology,
and Pathology" are as thoroughly taught and are
deemed as important to the student, as they are in
allopathic colleges, and portions of the homceopathic
journals from which he quotes are devoted to these
very subjects; but in the face of all these palpable
facts, Dr. Hooker-has the assurance to publish such
a libel!
In order to put the honesty of Dr. Hooker to the test,
we hereby offer to. stake $1000, for the benefit of the
poor of New York, on the result of an examination
of the following proposition. We will designate four,
six, or more, if desired, of the very youngest homreo



IDENTIIT OF DRUGS.            73
special pleading respecting what are impudently styled
the " inconsistencies" of homceopathic provings with
crude and attenuated medicines, doses, etc.
It is amusing to witness the flippancy with which
the writer seeks to pervert the ideas of Hahnemann
and his followers, by inventing his own data, and
then arguing against Homceopathy on the strength
of the positions which he falsely attributes to Hahnemann. For example, he everywhere implies that
according to the homceopathic doctrine, drugs lose
their identity, and become so altered in all respects
by the process of attenuation, that entirely new and
opposite properties are developed in them, so that
their modes of action.must be directly the reverse of
what they were in the crude state! Thus, at page 89,
we find the following: "They (homceopathists) record
in their collections of provings, indiscriminately, symptoms occurring under the use of both crude drugs and
dynamized infinitesimals; though they assert that
the latter act upon the system by virtue of a new
power given, to them in their preparation, and of
course cannot produce effects analogous tb those of
the former."
To prove the utter mendacity of the last part of this
quotation, we copy this statement from page 136 of
Hahnemann's Organon: " It is necessary to know the
fu2ll extent of the power by virtue of which each medicine excites disease. In other terms, it is requisite
that all the morbid symptoms and changes of the
health which their action individually is capable of
producing in the economy shall have been observed, as
closely as possible, before any one can hope to be able



74         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
to find or select from  among them  homemopathic
remedies that are appropriate to the greater number
of natural diseases."
In no work on Hommeopathy' has DI). Hooker ever
seen a single observation from which it could be inferred that the effects of crude and attenuated drugs
upon the organism, are not analogous. He has
everywhere seen, that by the process of attenuation,
latent properties of drugs become developed; in such
a manner that their entire specific effects may become
manifest upon the human body; but he has never
seen it stated that drugs lose their individuality and
specific  kind of action under any circumstances, or
that new and opposite properties are communicated to
them by the process of attenuation.
"The entire curative virtues of medicines depend
solely upon the power they have of modifying the
state of health." (Organon.) It matters not whether
this "modification of the state of health" be produced by -a large or small dose, or by a crude or
attenuated medicine; it is the correspondence of the
primitive symptoms caused by the drug, with those
of the natural disease, to which the hommaeopath
looks in the selection of his remedy. This is his
great therapeutical law, and this his chief guide in the
treatment of diseases.
The'homeopathic Materia Medica is made up of
primitive symptoms, derived from very numerous experiments made by men of undoubted integrity, with
both crude and attenuated medicines. In conducting
these experiments the utmost regularity, accuracy,
and care have always been observed, and those symp



SCALE OF ATTENUATIONS.           75
toms only retained which have repeatedly and uni.formly been experienced by different experimenters,
in different countries, at different periods, and under
a great variety of circumstances. Nearly all of these
provings have likewise been corroborated by cases of
accidental poisonings reported by our opponents, and
by pathological facts. What more than this can be
reasonably required to substantiate the reality and
the perfect accuracy of the facts under consideration.
Throughout the whole of his essay the writer is
constantly working himself into a passion, because
ilahnemann and his disciples, in carrying out their
therapeutical law to its full and legitimate extent, have
deemed it proper to make use of medicines of a great
variety of strengths, from the mother tinctures up to
very high dilutions. In commenting upon this subject,
Dr. Hooker involves himself in, repeated contradictions; for while he concedes that Hahnemann, in the
-first instance, practised in accordance with simtilia
with -ordinary-doses of crude medicines, he is constantly pretending that only infinitesimal doses are
really homeopathic, and in accordance with the
doctrines of Hahnemann. Why did the author of
Homneopathy direct the preparation of a variety of
strengths of drugs, from the. strongest tinctures up to
the thirtieth dilutions, and-" point out examples in
which these different-preparations should be employed,
unless he considered this scale of strengths harmonious with his great law  of cure, and of practical
utility. Why has he so repeatedly inculcated the
importance of selecting remedies of such strengths as
shall be most appropriate in each case, in order that
4*



76         HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
the curative reactions may be no more violent than
necessary to restore the disordered parts? We reply,
for the almost universally conceded reason that the
tissues of the human organism, during disease, are subject to a very great variety of degrees of susceptibility
to medicinal impressions. Dr. Hooker may affect to
despise this self-evident fact, both in theory and practice, and continue to dose his patients indiscriminately,
as heretofore, with scruple doses of calomel and jalap,
etc., but-Heaven help the delicate human structures
thus empirically assailed.
Allusion is made at page 90, and in other places,
to the employment of "' allopathic doses" of tincture
of camphor in cholera, by IHahnemann and his -followers. This, like most of the other assertions in the
book, is simply false.  Dr. Hooker knows that he
cannot point to a single homoeopathic writer who has
ever advised camphor or any other medicine in " allopathic doses." Tincture of camphor has been prescribed in cholera by homceopathists, in doses of one,
and possibly two drops, but never in.the usual allopathic doses of fifty or sixty drops. In all the instances, therefore, where he has spoken of the use of
C" allopathic doses," in disease, by homceopathic physicians, the reader may rest assured that he has published what he knew, while writing it, to be untrue.
We are aware that allopathists have been forced, by'the great influence of Homeeopathy upon the'public
mind, and by their lack of confidence in their system, to diminish their doses to a very great extent,
but this significant fact does not justify the calumny
to which we have just referred. Our amiable oppo



DISCOVEREiS IN SOIENOE.        77
nents would doubtless.be very glad to restrict Homnceopathy, by defining what particular dilution shall be
exclusively adopted; and also to appropriate, as many
of them have. already attempted to do, our therapeutical law, sz'm silia  imilibus curantur.  But when
future generations shall look back upon the, records of
those who have made the most important discoveries
in medical science, the name of Samuel Hahnemann
will stand foremost in the list, while those who now
asperse him and his doctrines will be among jests and
wonders that are half forgotten.



CHAPTER V.
THE INCONSISTENCIES OF ALLOPATRY kAND HER
ADVOCATES.
IN chapter V. of the " evidences," it is asserted that
all cures which take place under homeopathic treatment are attributable to the kindly operations of the
vis mnedicatrix natqura, and that the numerous deaths
which occur under allopathic. treatment must be
placed to the account of " bad Allopathy."
From these luminous "evidences," the reader is
left to infer that Homceopathy has only been tested in
a " few families," and in a few'" chronic cases," —
that its advocates are quacks, fools, liars, artful, dishonest, impudent, altogether destitute of judgment. To
support these astounding " evidences" the writer has
advanced two most noticeable confirmations, viz.: 1st,
his own assertion; and, 2d, a wonderful medicine box
which was picked up in New-York many years ago,
containing calomel, morphine, tartar emetic, &c., with
a number of homceopathic phials containing pellets!
These potent "evidences" are so ably enforced by the
constant use of the classical epithets above alluded to,



DEFINITION OF ALLOPATHY.          81
have for a long time been fully aware; but we con-,
fess we were not prepared to see the crumbling skeleton exposed to the gaze of the world by an allopathist.
From its extraordinary comprehensiveness, it is eminently worthy of the paternity of the prescription
alluded to in another part of this essay, containing
100 different and contradictory ingredients. — With
such a " very extended and diversified combination of
modes of practice," all tastes can surely be suited,
from the blood-letting Sangrado, and the heroic dispenser of calomel and opium, to the mincing gum-water
expectant, and the scientific prescriber of " powders
of bull's tail, boar's tooth, and man's skull," or the
" spirit and volatile salt of vipers, and man's blood."
Indeed, so "very extensive and diversified" is this
"',combination which constitutes Allopathy," that
within the last few years, the homeopathic law of
cure has been added to the list, with many of its
principal remedies, and its drop doses! It is true
that these men of "very extended and diversified
combinations " consider it- beneath their propriety to
learn the actual nature of homceopathic drugs, and
their applicability in disease, but prefer to employ them  empirically as the gambler throws his
dice, trusting,to "luck and chance" for the result.
With these "diversified combinations " allopathists
can pander to the fancies of "' all kinds of men and
the advocates of all kinds of systems."
The attempted introduction of the homceopathic
law, with its remedies and doses into Allopathy,
affords an excellent illustration of the consistency,
honesty, and. disinterestedness of the practitioners of



82          IOM(EO0PATHY VS, ALLOPAMT Y.
the old school. Fifty years ago this doctrine of
similia similibus cwrantur, and such medicines as aconite for fevers, belladonna for scarlatina, arnica for mechanical injuries, etc., encountered the ridicule and
bitter opposition of the entire body of our opponents,
and the very idea of prescribing any of these tinctures
in single drop doses was scouted as especially absurd
and unscientific. But modern Allopathy, with her
bony arms extended wide, is attempting to grasp
these heresies in her slimy and deadly embrace, like
a false fiend of darkness in pursuit of beauty and
truth. The genius of knowledge, however, is destined
to triumph over the demons of error and bigotry, and
truth, in the contest before us, will prevail.
We could cite numerous examples to demonstrate
the " very extended, and very diversified combinations " of principles by which different practitioners
of the old school are guided in the treatment of disease; but we shall confine ourselves to a brief description of a case of recent occurrence in this city,
as a fair sample of:the practical operation of the
"different modes, systems, and kinds of-practice"
now so much in vogue with the " regular physicians."
We allude to the case of the late J. Kearney Rodgers,
M.D.
For the facts in the case, we are indebted to a
pamphlet by Alexander E. iHosack, M. D., of  NewYork, with the following title:  -"History of the case
of the late- John IKearney Rodgers, M. D., addressed
to the profession." (C. S. Francis & Co., 282 Broadway, New-York.)
According to the records of Dr. Hosack, it appears



CASE OF DR. RODGERS.           83
that Dr. Rodgers was taken ill'on the 9th of October,
1851, with a slight chill, nausea, uneasiness in the
right side, and slight pain in the bowels.
On Saturday, the 11th, Dr. Dubois called in and
prescribed a Seidlitz powder.
On Sunday, the 12th, Dr. Wilkes was consulted,
and, regarding the disease "functional disorder of
the liver," administered two pills of blue mass, to
be followed by a Seidlitz powder.
On the 13th -and 14th, Dr. Hosack attended and
found him free from fever, with a white, slightly
coated tongue with a dingy hue at -the base, pain
in the bowels, slight'uneasiness -in the hypochondriac region, full and slightly accelerated, compressible pulse.  "'Regarding these symptoms as indicative of a biltary congestion," Dr. H. advised an
emetic or ten grains of. calomel, which, however, were
declined by the patient. On the evening of this day
Dr. Dubois was called in consultation with Dr. Hosack, and pronounced the symptoms " bilious remittent fever."
On Wednesday, the 15th, these two "'regular"
gentlemen again met in consultation, one of them
naming- the symptoms " congestion. of. the liver,"
*and the other calling them'.' bilious remittent fever."
Here we have a commencement of the "extended
and diversified combination" of practical'Allopathy.
Dr. Delafield was added to the consultation on
Friday evening, Oct.- Ith, and.declaring the disease
to be "bilious remittent fever," advised a discontinuance of the mercurial pills which had been prescribed ~by Dr. Hosack on the 15th, and a substitution



84         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLQPATHY.
of the " usual febrifuge medicines."  Here again we
have a beautiful practical illustration of the " diversi-fied combination" system of Allopathy. According
to one gentleman's " system" or ".mode." of practice,
the patient had a liver complaint, and required calomel: according to the system of the other gentleman,
the patient was affected with "bilious remittent
fever," and required the " usual febrifuge medicines."
If still another " regular" hlad been added to the consultation he would also have taken -advantage of the
".very extended and very diversified combination of
systems which constitute Allopathy," and named
the symptoms typhoid fever, for which opium and
bark would have been appropriate. Another, who
had made diseases of the kidneys a speciality would
have termed it nephritis, and prescribed bleeding,
leeching, nitrate of potash, &c. Another, from his
veneration of his illustrions predecessors, might have
attributed the symptoms to a " derangement of the
humors," and ordered " powders of bull's tail, crab's
eyes, and goat's blood, or volatile spirit and salt of
vipers, and man's blood." Another, if he had recently
returned from Paris, would have called the malady a
gastro-enterite, and insisted on the leeching and gumwater "mode."
These are only a few of the " very diversified combinations" which might be adduced to illustrate the
certainty and precision of Allopathy. As we advance
with the case under consideration it will be observed
that Ho-mceopathy. has not escaped, but has been
mixed up in admirable confusion.. with the' combination."



CASE OF DR. RODGERS.           85
From the 17th to the 22d of October the symptoms
were about as follows: " General restlessness, imperfect sleep, depression of spirits, anxious countenance,
slight fever, increased sallowness, accelerated pulse,
and at times moderate. perspiration." During-this entire period the " usual febrifuge medicines" were employed, and it was not until frequent rigors set in, followed by profuse perspirations,. that this "kind of
practice"  was abandoned and "another mode'"
adopted, consisting of " quinine in ten  and five
grain doses, at intervals of several hours, which
was continued for several successive days. The positive effect of-quinine was in due time made manifest by ringin  in the ears and almost total deafness!"
The " very extended, and very diversified combination" practice stands out again most prominently. But
why the attention of these gentlemen should have.been directed to the ears of their patient, we cannot
imagine. Why the auditory structures should be
treated to cure a " bilious fever," must puzzle all but
such " close reasoning" prodigies, as the author of the
"Evidences."
According to Dr. Delafield, however, this particular
" combination," or " mode," 6r " system," was productive of no benefit, as the patient continued to get worse.
And the learned doctor now ascertained "that there was
something in the case that he could' not understand! "
There was no difficulty in understanding the " ringing
in the ears," and the" almost total deafness," and if the
gentleman had consulted a homceopathic Materia Medica, and examined the proving of quinine, he would



86        HOMCEOPAT'HY' VS. ALLOPATHY.
have had no difficulty in comprehending most of the
other symptoms of the case. Were an individual to administer to a stout mastiff, ten grains of quinine every
few hours, for six days in succession, and the act could
be proved against him, he would be indicted and
punished for wanton cruelty to animals. But dog doctors are not "regular," they have no "very extended
and very diversified combinations," and they cannot
trace their origin beyond the dark ages-therefore,
dog and horse doctors should be held responsible for
their poisonings.
At this stage of the case, it was deemed expedient
to try a new " mode," a new " system," a new " combination," and accordingly, "tincture of aconite was
prescribed in doses of one drop each,'" in alternation
with large doses of aromatic sulphuric acid. The acid
was given for the avowed' purpose of arresting the
excessive sweats," but no reason was ascribed for the
employment of homceopathic doses of a homceopathic
remedy. The legitimate inference, therefore, is, that
aconite was brought into requisition on account of its
general use in fevers, by homceopathic practitioners.
This must be true, because, in no allopathic work is
this medicine advised as a remedy in " bilious remittent," or other fever. We are aware that this is only
carrying out the "' diversified combinations" so naively
described by Dr. Hooker in his definition of Allopathy, and it is probable that the remedy would have
proved successful, if the disease had really been a
"bilious remittent fever." But in justice to Homceopathy, we are compelled to declare, that there was-not
a single symptom from the commencement to the ter



88         HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
num in teaspoonful doses; effervescent draughts and
elixir of vitriol.
What particular "-system" or " combination" of Allopathy the other medical gentlemen would have
adopted if they had been allowed to exercise their
own unprompted judgments in the case, we cannot
imagine, but there is every reason to suppose that
they would not have confined themselves to " one
thing-one mode-one system," but that " all kinds
of practice," and the most " diversified combinations"
would have been called into requisition.
It may be urged that homnieopathic physicians
might also have mistaken this case, and we concede
the validity of the argument, if it is merely intended
to apply to the -classification of the symptoms under
some particular name. But the homoeopathist never
prescribes for groups of symptoms as a unit.  He
never regards the name which may be given to a disease, in the selection of his remedy, but each individual phenomenon connected with the case commands
his special attention, and is taken into consideration
in making up his prescription. It is. in no degree of
consequence to him whether the disease is designated
by this or that name; he looks only at symptoms, and
endeavors to combat them as they arise, by appropriate medicines.
Not so, however, with the allopathist.' His venerated
medical fathers have taught him that every.malady
and every' group of symptoms must have some particular name; and that his remedial measures must be
directed with reference to this name, and not to
symptoms. His first care, therefore, is. to ascertain



90          IOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
pathic or homaeopathic; and if the former, from what
old school authority, besides the " evidences" of Dr.
Hooker, are these minute doses derived-whether
bleeding and calomel, so boldly employed by some
old school gentlemen in cholera, do really kill or cure
patients; or whether opium, or rhubarb, or astringents, or gum-water, or the ethers, or brandy, or Hahnemann's specific, camphor, in drop doses, all of which
are-used by different practitioners, should be employed in this fearful malady -when shall we prescribe
according to the contraria contrariis opponenda, when
according to simwilia similibus curantur, when according to the cantipathic, or the expectart, or the Brumorian, or any of the other " diversified combinations"
which go to make up. Allopathy. Will Dr. Hooker
have the kindness to put himself into a pair of very
high-heeled boots with red tops, mount the town-pump
of Norwich, Connecticut, inflate his cheeks to the fullest capacity, and announce to our deluded human nature, who, beside himself, can distinguish "judicious
Allopathy" from " bad Allopathy"? After accomplishing this duty, will he be pleased to set his arms
akimbo, advance one foot iforward, da _  Napoleon, and
issue another decision declaring who, in addition to his
modest self, may be considered " practitioners of a judicious Allopathy? " These requests are made for the
benefit of allopathists alone, for the decree has already gone-forth respecting those homceopathists who
have been converted from Allopathy. We, deluded
converts, of course bow in abject submission before
the.majesty of genius.:-the extraordinary judgment,
the vast knowledge, the wonderful "mathematical



HOMCEOPATtO PHYSICIANS.           91
powers," the " close reasoninio," the " very extended,
and very -diversified combinations," the honesty, integrity, disinterestedness. charity, morality and piety
which pertain to Dr. Hooker, et id omne genus.  His
peculiar acumen and " close reasoning" have taught
him  that such men as IIenderson, Joslin, Tessier,
Croserio, Roth, Teste,'Dudgeon, Drysdale, Laurie,
Russel, Currie, Rose, Gross, Stapff, Fleischmann, Rapou, Molin,  Madden,::Scott, Quinn, Simon, Black,
Bayard, Gray, Metcalf, -Cox, Kitchen, and the many
thousand other converts from the "' diversified comnbinations which constitute Allopathy," are all, either
knaves and fools, or:actuated by " pecuniary considerations!"  How unfortunate that these deluded and
unhappy gentlemen:-had not been blessed with a
moiety of the penetratidn, the profound sense, the honesty, and the disinterestedness of Dr.'Hooker! How
unfortunate that: this.: brilliant sun of-Norwich did not
shine at the:commencement, instead of the middle of
the nineteenth century', so that the petty labors of
such an intelligenCe -as:that of Samuel Hahnemann
might have been annihilated in the beginning!
It is by no means a. pleasing task to wade through
the mass:ofl silly'  fallacies, and mean misrepresentations which' everywhere pervade Dr. Hooker's labored
essay, and we shall not therefore weary the reader by
noticing:-all-.of'his unfair assertions, and his impotent denunciations of Homweopathy and its advocates. It would be an easy thing to prove nearly the
whole publication, page by page,;a tissue of flimsy
sophistries respecting the homceopathic system, and of
unfounded accusations against its advocates, but they
5



92         HOMCEOPATIIY VS. ALLOPATHY.
are so palpable and absurd in their character, and the
vindictiveness, envy, and spite of their author are so
apparent, that such a course is not necessary. We
shall therefore only allude particularly in our remaining paragraphs- to a few- of those " towering"
statements, upon which considerable stress is laid.
Several pages of the present chapter are devoted to
Dr. Hooker's own assertions respecting the incompetency of homoeopathic physicians, or of laymen, to
judge of facts in medical science, and it is most earnestly advised that the people who had-the profoundest interest in the subject should rely solely upon the
superior wisdom, keen penetration, and peculiar tact
of such " close reasoning " philanthropists as himself.
He informs his readers that the statistics of homceopathic practice are of no-account, because homceopathic
families. have scarcely any acute diseases, but such as
are, for. the most part, either chronic or imaginary; or
if, by chance, a grave disorder should happen to exist, that an allopathic physician is instantly sent for!
A reply to such an absurd assertion as this would of
course be superfluous.
But in alluding to statistics, the writer very studiously avoids all mention of the homceopathic hospitals of Europe, several of which have for many years
been open to all observers. We shall in some measure supply. this omission by the following brief quotation from Professor Henderson's reply to Professor
Simpson's pamphlet on Homceopathy:
"Dr. Fleischmann, of the homeopathic hospital of
Vienna, at various periods, has published the results
of his treatment of inflammation of the lungs between



STATISTICS.                 93
the years 1834 and 1848-the latter being the last period for which his statistics have reached me. Dr. Reiss,
of the homceopdth'ic hospital at Lintz, Dr. Schweitzer,
of the homceopathic hospital at Kremsier, and Dr.
Tessier, of the hospital of Sainte-Marguerite of Paris,
also have published the statistics of their homceopathic
treatment of the same disease,'and the collective results are as follows: —728 cases.of inflammation of the
lungs, 35 deaths, or one death in 21 cases; less than
five per cent. In my letter tor Dr. Forbes, I have
given an account of the comparative success, in the
sanie disease, of the best hospital physicians, who use
allopathic remedies, in Paris; they firnish 531 cases,
of which: 81; died, or one in six and two-thirds, or
about fifteen per cent. In-the'Introduction to the
Study. of Homceopathy  (to which, and to the letter to
Dr. Forbes, the reader is referred for a more detailed
discussion of this most important'subject) various allopathic authorities are referred-to as furnishing-909
cases -of this disease, with 212 deaths, or 23.32 per
cent.; nearly one death in every four cases. In the
same work is contrasted the mortality under each systeim of treatment, in pleurisy and'peritonitis, and the
same vast superiority of the -homceopathic practice is
exhibited —the mortality of the former disease having
been in Fleischmann's practice, among 224 cases, only
one in'2, and' of the latter, among 105 cases, one in
21; while under the ordinary system, the mortality
was from 8 to 16 times greater. The absence of sufficiently large statistics on the allopathic side, renders
these last comparisons' less satisfactory than in the
instance of inflammation of the lungs; and in regard



98          H0OMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
both as an allopathic and as a homeopathic practitioner, with the members of both schools; and so
far as our observation has extended, the practitioners
of the new school compare favorably, in all respects
to say the least, with those of the old school. In the
present condition of IHomoeopathy, with its vast
array of intelligent and discriminating supporters, it
appears almost superfluous to refute these malicious
imputations of a certain class of our enemies, but as
falsehood often repeated, and uncontradicted, may
sometimes pass as truth, we have alluded to tile subject, and take the liberty of subjoining the opinion of
a liberal and enlightened opponent, the distinguished
Dr.'Forbes, formerly editor of the British and
Foreign Medical Review, as an offset to the uncalled
for and unsubstantiated denunciations of the gentleman from Norwich, Connecticut.
" No doctrine, however ingenious, not based on positive demonstrable facts, will any more be regarded
but as a piece of poetical speculation, which may
indeed amuse the fancy, but can never influence the
conduct of scientific men, much less of practical physicians. But Homceopathy comes before us in a much
more imposing aspect, and, claims our attention on
grounds which cannot be gainsayed.  It presents
itself as a new art of medicine, ai a mode of practice
utterly at variance with that long established in the
world; and clains the notice of mankind on the
irresistible ground of its superior. -..wer of curmng diseases and preserving human life. And it comes
before us now, not in,the  garb of a suppliant,
unknown and helpless, but as a' conqueror, powerful,



CLAIMS OF HOMCEOPATY.           99
famous, and triumphant.  The disciples of Hahnemann are spread over the who,le civilized world.
There is not a town of any considerable size in
Germany, France, Italy, England or America, that
does not boast of possessing one or more homceopathic physicians, not a few of whom are men of high
respectability and learning; many of them in large
practice, and patronized especially by persons of high
rank. New books on Homceopathy issue in abundance from  the press; and journals, exclusively
devoted to its cause, are printed and, widely circulated
in Europe and America. Numerous hospitals and
dispensaries for the treatment of the poor, on the new
system, have been established, many of which publish
reports blazoning its successes, not merely in warm
phrases, but in the hard words, and harder figures of
statistical tables."
On the last pages of this chapter we find a repetition of an old ex parte statement, made some fifteen or
twenty years ago, by M. Andral of Paris, (a bitter
opponent of Homceopathy,) respecting a trial which he
made with homceopathic- medicines, in one of the
Parisian hospitals.
That M. Andral was entirely ignorant of the doctrines of Hahnemann, and of the pathogeneses of the
drugs he made use of in this pretended trial, is clearly
evident from his own description of the experiment.
This fact was conclusively proved at the time, and.no one in Paris believed for an instant, thkat Andral
possessed- either, the knowledge to employ -hommeopathic remedies properly, or the moral honesty to
administer. them fairly if he had possessed this know



A1NDRAL'S EXPERIMENTS.          101
exclusively upon facts, and therefore requires a long
course of observance, and the most patient and accurate investigation, in order to apply its therapeutical resources properly.  Whenever Andral, or any
other allopathic physician, chooses to learn the doctrines taught by Hahnemann, and then to employ his
specifics honestly and fairly, he will -have no reason
to doubt the-truth of the former, or the great curative powers of the latter.



CHAPTER VI.
HOMI(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATFa CONTRASTED.
IN this chapter Dr. Hooker professes to give his
readers an "estimate of Hlahnemann."  Before making Up this curious "estimate," the writer must have
dosed himself largely with some of the "-accumulated
facts" of Allopathy, in the form of'' volatile spirit and
volatile salt of vipers," for we do not believe there
can be found, in the entire annals of medicine, a more
offensive and pitiable exhibition of vindictiveness, or
more utter disregard of the common decencies of life,
than are here presented. The only "arguments" or
"evidences" which are -adduced in this mendacious
chapter to illustrate the character and labors of Hahnemann, are derived from the morbid imagination
of the writer himself, and are such as: "cheat,"
"medical fanatic,'  "wild dreamer in science," " absurd theorizer," " scientific fool," " flimsy reasoner,"
" prone to delusion,"' "quack," "mongrel,"' "fantastic," "radical," "fanatic," etc.  These are the
" arguments," the " evidences," and the " close reasonings," indulged by our opponents; this is the kind of
logic employed by modern allopathists to injure a rival method. We have no means of knowing whether this Hippocratic oracle " made up faces," or " tore



104        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
his fellow men, unparalleled in the history of any
science, he entered upon his glorious mission. At
this period, there were no fixed and generally received ideas -upon medical topics, but everything was
vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory. Opinions that
were deemed orthodox in one country, were denounced
as erroneous in another. Hence arose a great variety
of modes of practice, of the most contradictory characters, each sustained by its array of strenuous advocacy, but all. of them founded upon conjecture, or
derived from the absurd dogmas of antiquity.
And this was no new state of things, for the whole
history of Allopathy had- thus far consisted of nothing
but a continued succession of changes in theory and
practice. Each generation had continued to advance
new ideas respecting the nature and treatment of diseases, and to look back with pity or contempt upon
the ages which had gone before.
With all those changes, however, the mortality of
the sick had not at all diminished. Patients continued
to sicken, to be drugged, and to die, as before, whether under the antiphlogistic, the expectant, the Brunoniani, or other mode- of treatment. The medical
world. had so long regarded the doctrines of the ancients. with veneration, that nearly all the practical
results of these doctrines were retained, although the
theoretical parts were rejected as absurd. Let it ever
be impressed upon the mind, that blood-letting, emetics, purgatives, sudorifics, etc., originated legitimately
and naturally from the " humoral pathology."
Hippocrates announced- that the existence of the
four humors, viz.: the blood, the phlegm, the yellow



HUMORAL PATHOLOGY.            105
bile, and- the. black bile, in proper proportions in respect to "quantity, quality, and'mixture," constituted
the healthy condition; and that any variation in the
quality or in the proportions of these humors, occasions disease.
HIis treatment consisted in expelling from the body
by bleeding, purging, sweating, etc., a certain amount
of any humor, which might exist in excessive quantity, and thus restore those proportions Which constitute health. If the theoretical opinions of Hippocrates
had been;- correct, if those humors had been actually
destined to play the part in the organism which was
attributed to them, and if the true cause of disease
had consisted in an excess of one or more of them,
then the evacuation and correction of these deranged
fluids would; have been a reasonable, and, perhaps,
successful mode of practice.
For many centuries the humoral pathology prevailed
almost universally, and the treatment which had been
legitimately deduced- from  this pathology was of
course recognisedl as the chief tmeans of cure. But
when totally new ideas obtained theoretically, and
-the humoral doctrines of the ancients were discarded
as fanciful and absurd, it was reasonable to suppose
that new theories of cure and new systems of practice
would, be adopted; but strange as it may be deemed,
such was not the fact.
Fifty years ago, the medical world was divided into
numerous, sects, such as the vitalists, the solidists, the
eclectics, the Brunonians, the expectants, etc., each
of which entertained peculiar views in regard to the
causes and nature of disease; but singular enough, in



IIxANEM"AN.~              107
-but by a long series of) painful and hazardous experiments with drugs in different forms and different
doses, upon his own person. During the course of
these experiments, Hahnemann was not unfrequently
made seriously ill for weeks together, often noting
with feverish brow and trembling hand, each painful
symptom as it occurred.
When examining, a few years since, at Paris, the
original provings.of Hahnemann, in his own handwriting, we were filled with astonishment and veneration, at the contemplation of the immense labor,
disease, and pain, which all these provings must have
cost their author, and of the, active benevolence which
must have prompted them.. While tracing the different kinds of writing, here bold and plain, there timid
and tremulous,now irregular, and in someecases nearly
illegible, we could alm'ost fancy this benefactor of his
race in the midst of his trials and his sufferings. When
remonstrances were offered by his wife and friends,,
against the risks to which he continually exposed
himself in his experiments, his noble reply was,
"What is the comfort or happiness of one man, in
comparison with the future welfare of thousands and
perhaps millions T,or what? the life of a single individual, compared to the well-being of generations of
men?."
No one ever knew IHahnemann, but to love his
personal traits, to admire his brilliant genius and
talents, and to revere the benevolent impulses which
inspired all his vast efforts in behalf ofnmedical science. Even his strongest opponents, (we. mean those
who have any pretensions to ability, or are recognized



ALLOPATHIC VERDICTS.         109
blindness to -the truth of Homceopathy.  If this
charge be well founded, the medical profession are
governed in relation to this doctrine by a spirit altogether different from that which they have manifested towards all other, new doctrines and opinions.
Look over the whole history of medicine, and observe
the course which the profession have pursued, in regard to the numberless doctrines and theories which
have arisen from time to time. As they have passed
away one after another, they have been examined and
sifted by medical men, and while much has been rejected, much has been retained and'added to the permanent treasures of our science." (p. 128.)
We do not remember ever to have witnessed a
more supremely ridiculous delivery, than, this' of
Dr. -Hooker, respecting the "verdicts of allopathic
medical men." If any one will take the trouble to
" look over the whole history of medicine, and observe the  course -which the profession have pursued,
in regard to the numberless doctrines and theories
which, have arisen from time to time," the pitiable
absurdity of Dr. Hooker's reasoning upon this subject, will be apparent.
Some twenty-two hundred years ago, a doctrine was
announced, that the human body' contained four
different humors. Health was supposed to obtain,
when these fluids -were all right with respect to
"quantity, quality, and mixture;" while diseases
were supposed to be produced by any alterations in
the proportions or quality of these humors. Upon
this hypothesis, a treatment was adopted, as we have
already intimated, for the purpose -of " purging off"



110    tHOMEOPATHY VS.. A-LOPATHY.
and " correcting" these disordered fluids. The doctrine has been recognised under the name of " humoral pathology."
This doctrine was "fairly before medical men," not
for fifty years only, but for two thousand years, and
that too after "the profession had passed its verdict
upon it in the most deliberate and positive manner!"
That" verdict" was favorable. What a grand illustration of the judgment, the wisdom, the critical
acumen, and the profound sagacity of allopathic
physicians!- What a commentary upon the competency of such " medical men," to decide respecting
the merits of a system of medicine! In this instance,
the " sifting" process was not even commenced until
the families of mankind had been poisoned for more
than twenty centuries by such profound and " close
reasoning analyzers " as Dr. Hooker and his amiable
colaborateurs.!- The curative efforts of these wise
fathers of Allopathy during this long period, were
directed to the correction of four imaginary humors.
Occasionally, while these centuries were rolling on,
an individual would dare to think for himself, and to
express an original idea; but -instantly the whole
"faculty" would frown upon him as an innovator, a
disregarder of the "accumulated facts" of antiquity,
a man of " loose analogies,"-a " dreamer in science,"
and a- " quack;" and he would be crushed under the
force of a close banded interest. - It is true, that a
small number, including Themison, Celsus, and
Paracelsus, succeeded in attracting the attention of
medical men temporarily to their innovations, but
the "verdict". for the "humoral pathology and'prac



ALLOPATHIC VERDICTS.          111
tice" remained fixed and unchangeable. until the
seventeenth century, when Baglivi originated the
doctrine that all morbid changes commenced in the
solids, and that the fluids were only acted upon
secondarily.
Cotemporary with Baglivi was -loffmann, who
adopted the views. of the former, but attempted to'explain the nature of diseased action by the operation
of what he termed spasm or atomy.
From- this period until the present time, several
medical'theories have'been introduced, allopathic
"medical men" have examined them, and the
"verdict" has been in favor of adopting them  all
in theory, but to abide by no one of them in practice.
It is for this reason.that the medical world, at the
present time, is divided into so many different sects,
and that the treatment of disease corresponds to the
peculiar pathological notions which'each individual
physician happens to entertain. No two colleges of
medicine teach the same doctrines —no two professors
entertain the same theoretical opinions-and as Dr.
Hooker well observes, "no one thing, no one mode,
no one system, no one kind of practice," generally
obtains-; but -the term  Allopathy is. applied to a
" very,extended, and very diversified combinatiorn" of
contradictory modes of both practice and theory. A
graduate of one institution bleeds on all occasions;
his " regular" brother, who has received his "c bundle
of ideas" from another school, denounces-blood-letting
as pernicious, and commends the almost universal
employment of calomel and opium; another university sends forth its students with the impression



112        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
that most of the ills of humanity are dependent on
gastro-enterite, and the practical " verdict" is, leeches,
and gum-water; and the " verdict" of another college
may be in favor of the excitement and collapse, or
the sthenic and asthenic theories, and direct its
students to beware of any " very diversified comnbinations" in their practice, but to confine their treatment
to stimulation and exhaustion.
Other schools lecture about all theories, believing
in no one of them; but as their perplexed pupils must
have some method of treating disease, they render
their " deliberate and positive verdict" in favor of the
bleeding, vomiting, purging, sweating, and blistering
system, which was derived from the exploded humoral pathology. Whether any of these schools include
among their remedies; the " volatile spirit and salt of
vipers," or the "powders of bull's tail, bore's tooth,
crab's eyes, and man's blood," we are not informed;
but we find these remedies most highly recommended
in the treatment of pleurisy, and other maladies, byone of the most eminent of modern allopathists, Sydenham, the -" English Hippocrates." *
Allopathic "medical men," required two thousand
years to " examine, sift, and form-their deliberate and
positive verdict "'respecting the utter absurdity of the
theoretical tenets of Hippocrates-the humoral pathology. If arithmetic be invoked, -according to the custom of our opponents in regard to imponderable doses,
it-will probably be ascertained that eighteen or twenty
additional centuries will be required to enable these
* Sydenham's Processus Integri, London, 1707, p. 53-4.



ALLOPrATHIC VERDICTS.         113
profound and " close reasoning." individuals to "'examine, sift, and pass their deliberate and positive
verdicts" upon the absurdity and destructiveness of
the humoral treatment to which this pathology gave
rise! Some of these deliberate gentlemen have firmly
believed for two hundred years, that diseases consist in
derangements of the vital properties of parts, and that
the exciting causes of these derangements are for the
most part dynamic, infinitesimal, and imponderable.
In view of these doctrines, it would be natural to suppose that dynamic, infinitesimal and imponderable
remedial agents would be selected to act on such vital
properties, sand to counteract'such subtile exciting
causes! But no, Allopathy deliberates slowly, and
as the humoral practice of blood-letting, vomiting,
purging, sweating, blistering, together With Dr. Sydenham's redoubtable "' powders of bull's tail," &c., and
the' volatile spirit and salt of vipers'  are quite
as important, and demand as close "examination and
sifting" as the remarkable theory respecting the "four
humors," above mentioned, a "deliberate -and positive verdict" cannot reasonably be expected until
about the year of grace, 4,000. Then, if the final
conflagration shall not have converted this world into
infinitesimal molecules, including the very material
and substantial Dr. Hooker himself, a more appropriate dynamic system of' treatment may be anticipated, such as should.legitimately be deduced from
a vital theory of diseases.
We- have remarked that a few of our opponents,
after abandoning the humoral pathology which had
served them for two thousand years, became vitalists



118       IHOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
a woman of Germany, which is 400 miles and odde
from  Rome, was, brought to the pillar, I there
being present, with great strength and violently this
woman was put into that pillar within the iron grate,
and after her did go in a priest, and did examine the
woman under this manner, in the Italian'tongue.'Thou devill or devills, I doe abjure thee by the potentiall power of the Father, and of the Sonne our
Lord Jesus Christ, and -by the virtue of the Holy
Ghost, that thou doe show to me for what cause that
thou doest possess this woman: what words was answered, I will not write, for. men will not believe it,
but wolde say it were a foule and greate lye, but I
did hear that I was afrayd to tarry any longer, lest
that the devills should have come out of her and to
have entered into me, remembering what is specified
in the. chapter of St. Matthew, when that Jesus Christ
had' made two men whole, the which waspossessed
of a legion of devills." (p. 5.)
The writer enters into a learned discussion as to
whether the great efficacy of the cure was attributable
to the pillar or to the holy words of the priest; and
after "examining and sifting" the' evidences in the
case he forms " a most deliberate and positive verdict" in' favor of the latter.
Allopathy of 167-9.*  According to the' English
Hippocrates," Sydenham, " Jaundice is -caused by the
diminution, loss, or decay of the animal salt in man's
body," and the following remedies are advised as
especially valuable: "Volatile salts of earth worms,
*Praxis Medica, of Sydenhamn, London, 1679, p. 451-2-4-6.



120        ROMMOPAT-HY vS. ALLOPATHY.
or being small in quantity, do not exert themselves
with vigor enough."
The chief remedies advised are, "mercurial purgatives, powder of viper's flesh and viper's, bones, volatile salts of earth worms, man's hair, and of dried hMtman flesh, (which is inferior to no other medica.
ment)." (Dr. Sydenham's Processus Integri, p. 177.)
In the same work we find the following prescription
for epilepsy: " Native cinnabar, man's skull filed, or
philosophically calcined, elk's hoof,. of each a drachm,
powder of the heart and lungs of a mole, a drachm and
a half, bezoarticum  lunoe, crab's eyes levigated, of
each a drachm, saffron a scruple, ambergrise, volatile
laudanum, of each 5 grains; mix them-dose from a
scruple to two scruples, according to-age, in water of
lilly convally flowers, and syrup of citron peels. Earth
worms dried ~ and, powdered, and'given. to half' a
scruple, have been experimented effectual; so also the
ashes of a mole given in like- dose." (Ibid, p. 86.)
The following powders are highly praised as a remedy for bleeding at the nose, and hemorrhages of
different kinds-: " Take of powder of man's blood, and
of man's liver, dry'd, of each an ounce; powder of
dry'd earth worms, and of catechu, of each half an
ounce; ashes of an old hat, or so roasted that it may
be rubbed to powder,'hog's excrements, dry'd and
powdered, of each' one drachm; mix and divide into
five powders for use."'(Ibid, p. 2~5.)
From a standard allopathic work on the practice of
medicine, we extract the following recipes: " Powder
of wood lice prepared  Div, white poppy seed D i



ALLOPATHY OF 171I.            121
powder of vipers Dii, mix-this is a powerful lythontriptic medicine, and ought to be had in estimation of
all troubled with that disease; give the foresaid quantity at once in broth." (Collectanea lledica, London,
1703, p. 86.)
In the same work we find the following external
application for quinsey: " One swallow's nest, album
groecum, Zjss, roots of althea, and of white lillies,
of each one oz., figs and dates, of each three, boil them
in water, and then add oyl of. violets, three drachms,
chamomile flowers, meal of Fenugreek-seed, linseed,
wheat, of each  six  drachms, cat's brains, four,drachms, powder of an owl burnt, iof swallow's
burnt, of each two drachms, one yolk of an egg,
saffron, one scruple,-make a cataplasm. This cures
a desperate quinsey." (p. 104.)
For colic, the writer recommends laudanum, and
"' drachm doses of powder of wolf's gut in wine," as
a sovereign remedy.
In a standard French work on surgery, written in
1714, "by l1E. Le Clerc, physician: and surgeon to
the French King," we find the following prescriptions
for cancer, which are declared specific:  " A decoction of vipers, crab's, eyes, adders and toads, may
serve to bathe them, and some of it may be taken
inwardly." The powders of mcles, toads, frogs, and
crabs calcin'd, cleanse the ulcers perfectly well."
(p. 166.)
Dr. Le Clerc speaks highly of calomel, and
"viper's grease in doses of half a drachm," in syphilis.
During the early part' of the 18th century, the



122         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
metaphysical views of Stahl were "examined and
sifted " by the profession, and received their " deliberate and positive verdict" of - approval. This
sect was recognized under the name of AnMnzists or
Spirit'uali.sts. Taking into consideration the fact that
solids-and fluids when connected with the living body,
are not subject to putrefaction, dissolution, and other
ordinary laws of matter as when disconnected with
it,-Stahll superadded a spiritual principle which he
termed antirna, whic-h was supposed to act in "opposition to the physical powels of matter, and to
whlich.the. body owes all those  properties that
are strictly denominated vital.  Ile supposes this
principle to possess peculiar qualities, distinct finom
those which belong to matter; and he especially endow-ed it with a species of intelligence, or even consciEousness, by which it acts the part of a rational
agent, -and is the general director of all the corporeal
operations."
Among the distinguished physicians of the eighteenthl century,  who took a prominent part in sealing
the " deliberate and positive verdict" in favor of the
Stahlian hyp!othesis, were Sauvages, Whytt, Nicholls,
Gaubins, Alberti, and Junker.
During the last half' of the eighteenth.century, anotlher hl.ypothlesis was "examined and sifted" by this
"close reasoning" profession, and a "deliberate and
positive verdic " was rendered in favor of the "vital
tlleory."  " They have professed to ascertain the laws
of the'animal eiconlomy )by actual observation, and by
this means to discover lwhlat are 1ihe appropriate
powers or qualities of the living bcdy, and in what



ALIOPATHY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.  123
respect these powers or qualities differ from, those of
inanimate or -unorganized matter."
It is true that during this century there were a few
sensible -men, who, reasoning from the medical absurdities of the past, repudiated all hypotheses, and
declared themselves eclectics. These men evidently
entertained a profound contempt for the whole system of Allopathy, and wisely determined to keep
aloof from all hypotheses, and trust to Providence in
the treatment of disease, until a rational system of
medicine should be discovered. These early eclectics
were apparently honest. They appreciated the fallacies of every medical doctrine which had -been
broached, and prepared to arm their book of knowledge and remain "non-committal," until something
reasonable and demonstrable should be proposed,
rather than to accept any of the visionary tenets
which were then ill vogue.
As the -nineteenth century dawned upon the world,
the science of medicine presented a singular spectacle.
Instead of a rational and consistent theory of disease,
and a uniform system of cure founded upon well-ascertained facts, medical men were divided into
animists, vitalists, solidists, chemists, eclectics, Brunonians, Cullenists, mechanicians, expectants, etc.
But notwithstanding these numerous and contradictory theoretical doctrines, no new practical tenets
were deduced, but the humoral treatment of bloodletting, -purging, vomiting, sweating, stimulating,
blistering, &c., were still prescribed, although in amost vague and contradictory manner. For the same
malady one sect advised bleeding and purging;
6*



124        HOS{MEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
another sect denounced this treatment as fatal, and
commended. stimulants;'another class prescribed
chemical alteratives; another.emetics and diaphoretics; another opiates and gum-water, and so on ad
inrfinitum.
Thus has Allopathy continued up to the present
moment-a gigantic system -of theorizing from absurd and imaginary data. During the two thousand
years in which the allopathic "verdict" was fixed i'n
favor of the humoral pathology, this reckless spirit of
theorizing was expended in experimenting upon poor
humanity with almost every conceivable and outre
substance, from blood-letting and physic, down to
toads; adders, bull's tail, man's scull, and viper's
grease.  But from  the middle of the seventeenth
century to the present time, the "' most extended and
diversified  combination  of systems-modes —and
-kinds of practice," have been pursued by our opponents that can possibly be conceived of, so that
human life has been made the play-thing of various
sects of legalized empyrics. Ever ready to practically
test their absurd hypotheses, and their guess-work
prescriptions upon others, it is a notorious fact that
they have very rarely had the courage or we should
rather say desperation, to try the same experiments
upon themselves or their families.
Assuming to herself vast knowledge and respectability-denying the ability of the public to judge
respecting medical matters-boasting of her great
antiquity, and of her accumulated facts of two thousand years, modern Allopathy has entrenched herself
behind her enormos' self-conceit, surrounded by



126        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHR.
ested in the matter, should decide respecting the
comparative merits of the two classes of practitioners,
confident that the verdict will not be in favor of those
who boast most of their own qualifications, or are
most lavish in the use of vulgar abuse.
We ask, then, if it is proper that medical doctrines
should be submitted to the advocates of Allopathy -for
a " verdict"? Is it reasonable to suppose that Hahnemann and his followers would submit their theory
of cure to the tender mercies of their opponents, after
a single glance at the past history of medical doctrines? The Ilahnemannian principle strikes at the
foundation of the whole- allopathic fabric, and the
points Jat issue involve the very existence of one or the
other method. There can be no mixilng of practices,
no "very extended and very diversified cornbinations" of principles, and no compromise of any description between the two schools, fob their doctrines
are directly opposite to each other, so-that one side
must of necessity be all wrong. For this reason we
should as soon think of placing the Chiristian religion
before Satan for approval, as of sulblnitting the truths
of l-Iolnceopathy to the'judgment of an Old School
tribu nal.  These self-constituted judges may, for
aught we know. be competent to deliberate upon
their owon doctrinal points, and form "' positive verdicts" as to whether " maniack persons be possessed
of devills," and whether the best treatment consists in
putting  thell into the " white.. marlble pillar of St.
Peter's church at Romnv' in order that the juristmay
quiz the devils so closely as to inducethern to take
" French leave" of "' he or she that be possessed.;" or



JEWISa  VERDICTS.           127
they may constitute a very appropriate medical jury
to decide respecting the merits of the "volatile spirits
and volatile salt of vipers, man's blood, urine," &c.,
and the "-very extended and very diversified combination" of powders peculiar to. Allopathy, like those
of " bull's tail, dried toads, adders, wolf's gut, crab's
eyes, old hat, earth worms, man's skull, hog lice,
wood lice, human flesh, human liver,' etc., etc., but
we most emphatically deny their competency, both
intellectually and morally, to render a just opinion
respectirg the merits of Homaeopathy. The followers
of ilahnemaun will continue, therefore, to decline all
these very kind offices of their vindictive opponents;
and trust, as usual, to the spontaneous verdicts which
are daily being rendered by a discriminating public.
Dr. Hooker asserts that only a few of the eminent
men of his school have embraced Homceopathy, and
that this is presumptive evidence of its unsoundness.
This Inode of combatting truth is not new, as any one
may be convinced by looking back upon all' past discoveries of any real value. When Christ and his humble disciples proclaimed to the world the glorious
truths of the Christian religion, nearly all of the
learned and powerful men of that period, especially
the priests and other members of the' clerical profession," denounced our Saviour oas an impostor, and
his doctrines as fallacies.  After he had continued
his mission through a long series of years, and multitudes of the people had been convinced of the truth
of what he taught, the argument of this " profession"
then was, "behold our rabbis, our'priests, our wise
men, our men in authority,-do not they adhere to



128        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
their ancient gods, their idols, and their accumulated
facts of centuries?"  " Have they not passed their
verdict against the religion of Christ in the most deliberate manner? and can such an holy, learned and
ancient profession be wrong?"   These allopathic
rabbis and their abettors carried out their verdict in
a practical manner by nailing our SaViour to the
cross; but all of their persecutions and false accusations did not for an instant arrest. the diffusion of
the Gospel among the people.
The same rabbinical motives now actuate the professors of Allopathy in their opposition to HEomceopathy. The most eminent of them are in receipt of
large incomes from extensive practices, from professorships in medical colleges, from positions in hospitals, and from other lucrative offices, and they cannot
afford to acknowledge the truth of Homceopathy, for
by so doing they would be cast out of the allopathic
synagogue, with a prospect of loss of business, and
starvation staring them in the face. These distinguished Old School gentlemen are altogether human
and -prudential-they know their own interests too
well to forsake their ancient idols-they prefer to remain sleek and comfortable, and to be drawn about
the streets by pairs of good-blooded and comfortable
horses, rather than to run the risk of being nailed to an
lallopathic cross. And then these well-conditioned
gentlemen are quite aware of the time and labor
it would require to learn the homceopathic doctrines so
as to be able to practice them properly, and this again
deters them from even an investigation of the subject.
So likewise, pride of opinion, long standing and deep



MEDICAL RADICALISM.           131
"right track," and become useful members of the -homceopathic profession.
In the last pages of his essay, Dr. Hooker alludes to
lHomceopathy as a system of " medical radicalism,"
and to her advocates, as "radicals in medicine," and
like a starving mendicant, implores "the intelligent
and influential in the community" not to encourage-this
radicalism, but t-o' throw- around his profession all
those safeguards which are needed to secure its advancement."  In lieu of any arguments to sustain his
assertion, or of any reasons why his modest request
should be granted, he resorts to the same wise and
profound philosophy which pervades his entire attack-,
in the form of the most "extended and diversified
combination" of epithets, that we have ever seen
strung together.
His style of logic is something like this: "Hiomeeopathy is a system of medical radicalism," and therefore  "medical delusion," "fallacy," "quackery,"
" imposture,"  "absurdity," " ephemeral folly," "patent nostrums," " fantasies,' "fanatical," "loose reasoners," etc., etc. The advocates of Homceopathy possess tile very spirit of radicalism," therefore, " quack,"
impostor," "ignoramus,"  " dreamers,"  "scientific
fools," "loose analyzers," "cheats," "uneducated,"
"irresponsible," etc., etc.
It is certainly a novel if not a conclusive mode of
attacking a rival system, to make an arbitrary assertion, and then to ransack Webster's dictionary for abusive words with which to sustain it. This may be a
very shrewd-" Yankee trick" in medical dialectics, but
ill not suit the intellectual palates of the " intelli



132        HOMEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
gent and influential in the community," any better
than the equally ingenious.trick" of palming off
wooden nutmegs and wooden hams, as genuine articles, would agree with their gustatory faculties.
But let us briefly examine this " medical radicalism " of which Dr. Hooker speaks, and endeavor to
ascertain.what class of physicians are really entitled
to the appellation of" medical radicals."
The term radicalism is usually applied to any extreme
theory, which recognizes no fixed laws, and which
appropriates to itself hypotheses. from  all sources,
without proofs to substantiate their validity, and without any regard to logical induction. A system, therefore, which is constantly changing its, ground-which
advocates one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow —which professes theoretical ideas of the most ultra,
diverse and contradictory character, while in practice
it recognizes a mode of treatment founded: upon an
universally conceded absurdity, may with great justice
be termed a radical system.
Let us now make an application of Dr. Hooker's
definition of Allopathy, and see whether or not the
"' coat fits."'" But what is Allopathy? Is it one thing
-one mode-one sy..tem? By no means. This term
is applied to all kinds- of practice pursued by all regular physicians; It is a very extended, and very diversified combination. It includes much that is-good,
and much that is bad. And the practitioners of this
Allopathy are, some of them,. bad practitioners."
(p. 100.)'Here is" radicalism in medicine" with a vengeance.
It has not even the saving virtue of being entitled to



MEDICAL RADICALISM.          133
the rank of a specious and plausible radicalism; for it
has no limits, it recognizes no bounds, but appropriates " all modes-all systems-all things, and all
kinds of practice," from the heroic and humoral remedies of the fathers of ancient Allopathy, Hippocrates and Galen, down to the " viper's grease " and
" powders of old hat," of the fathers of modern Allopathy, iHelmont and Sydenham.
It is conceded on all hands that Allopathy has no
fixed and permanent basis, either in theory or practice,
and therefore, that each medical man must exercise
his own private judgment respecting the -nature and
treatment of each case to which he may be called.
The very- largest liberty is allowed him in forming his
opinion, and therefore, he -explores the whole boundless universe of Allopathyf from the foundation of
medicine to the present time, selecting here an idea
and there an idea, as best suits his particular fancy,
and then brings these scattered and arbitrary notions
to bear in treating the sick. To-day one theory and
one kind of practice prevail: to-morrow an ingenious
theorizer brings forward a new set of views, and a
new mode of practice, and -the doctrines of yesterday
are overthrown. Changes, innovations, and radicalism,
of the most ultra description have been eminently
characteristic of Allopathy, from the abandonment
of the Hippocratic and Galenic pathology, to the
present moment.- The human stomach has been
looked upon and used by this school, as an experimental laboratory wherein her advocates mighti practically test their numerous and contradictory hypotheses. In carrying out such experiments, she has



POLITICAL RADICALISM.           135
sion of property, a plurality of wives, and for the
appropriation to his own purposes of everything which
happens to'suit his fancy or convenience, is certainly
a dangerous member of community, and his principles, were they generally carried out, would undermine the foundations of society, and lead directly to
3ocial anarchy and confusion. He believes himself
mntitled to the.largest kind of liberty, both in theory
ind practice, and explores the entire records of his-;ory for precedents to sustain his views, from the poly-,amous Solomon of old, to' the — social and varietyoving Mormon of the present day.  Dr. Hooker's
lefinition of modern Allopathy applies admirably to
his contemporary political system which has, been anLounced by Proudhom and Joseph.Smith.  Like its'rototype, it is not "one thing-one mode-one sysam: by no means. This term (socialism) is applied to
11 kinds of practice pursued by all regular physicians
Socialists). It is a very extended and a very diversi-'ed combination. It includes much that is good, and:uch that is bad. And the practitioners of this'Alloathy (socialism) are, some of them, bad practitionBut if the political radical, in- practically testing
is eclectic and empirical views, endangers the insgrity and purity of the social fabric, what shall be
lid of the medical radical 4who practically experi-,ents, with his equally empirical processes upon the
iseased human- fabric?  The socialist radical con-,minates and impairs the principles of men; the.edical radical poisons their bodies. The course of
-e one leads to immorality- and vice, that of the other
permanent illness, suffering, and premature death.



CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.
FRom the foregoing observations, the profession and
the community will remark that the Hippocratic
school of the present day is actuated by the same intolerant spirit which has always characterized it
since the days of Hippocrates and Galen. The very
distinction of the subject of medicine-the uncertainty
and mystery pertaining to the intimate nature of disease, and the modus operandi of remedial agentsthe proneness of mankind.to measure all things by
previous knowledge-the influence of long established
dogmas,-and the deeply-rooted prejudices they have
engendered-the momentous interests at stake in
connection with the practice of the art, have each
tended to encompass the subject with difficulties, and
th~us enable the intolerant, the bigoted, the selfish,
and the designing of the profession to exercise an
undue influence over the general mind. Whenever
an original.idea has been advanced which has happened to clash with any of the " accumulated facts
of ages," the m'edical rabbis who preside over the
shrine of ancient Allopathy, have ever been on the
alert, and by denunciations, persecution, and various



138        HOMCEOPATHY- VS. ALLOPATHY.
physiology now hold. The crude notions of these
early physicians are excusable, on the ground of their
utter ignorance respecting the phenomena of life, and
of the vast powers of imponderable agents in their
chemical, morbific, and remedial operations upon m-aterial structures; but the obstinacy and Wilful blindness of their modern brethren, with regard to these important; subjects, is not only inexcusable, but deserving of the severest censure.
No class of men, however strong their position may
have become from circumstances which have long
been in operation, has the right to trifle with human
life and human happiness, by endeavoring to repress
investigations which threatento clash with their antiquated prejudices, or to overthrow their preconceived
dogmas. No body of men has the right, or will be
permitted, at this enlightened period, to act as. judges
and dictators of tlle opinions of others, or to exercise
any permanent influence against an opponent by private calunnmies, collegiate persecutions, or legislative
enactments. The -days -of the inquisition have long
since fled, and no medical Loyola can now plot and
conspire against the promulgation of knowledge and
truth. The, ideas of Homceopathy may still be assailed by the impotent denunciations and the senseless
ridicule of the ignorant and conceited of the Old
School; as heretofore, but iHomeopathy will continue
to advance until the crumbling fabric of Allopathy
shall be prostrate, and the only rational system of
medicine established in its place.
From much observation during a practice of fifteen
years, first as an allopathist and then as a homceopath



POINTS AT ISSUE MISUNDERSTOOD.       139
ist, we are quite satisfied that the practitioners of the
Old School, as a body, are entirely ignorant of the doctrines of Homceopathy. This is daily illustrated' in
their constant assertions that the remedies of the two
schools are the same, and that the only difference consists in the fact that the allopath uses these drugs in a
crude state, while the homceopath uses theih in an infinitesimal form.  In their allusions to the subject,
they almost invariably leave out of the question the
real points at issue between the two systems, and confine themselves to the incidental point of doses. How.
often do we hear the remark by the Old School physician that this or that medicine is allopathic, without
any reference to the disease or symptoms for which
it is employed; thus leaving the impression that both
schools administer the same remedies in the same
diseases!  How studiously do they conceal the fact
that one class of practitioners doctor the stomach, intestines, and skin, for nearly all diseases, while the
other class direct their remedial applications to diseased parts only. With how much' assumed importance and gusto do the smaller men of the profession
presume to sit in judgment on Hahnemann, and with
sardonic grimaces discharge their intellectual popguns at infinitesimal doses, while the towering citadel of similia similibus curantur receives not a single
paper wad. Occasionally, however, a man of extraordinary courage, like Dr. Hooker, dares to notice our
law of cure. But even in these instances we regret
to perceive that the spirit of the homceopathic principle is entirely misunderstood'and -misrepresented.
These writers have evidently given only a superficial



142        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
worthy of a passing inuendo, now teem  with sophistries and calumnies against it of the most Jesuitical and vindictive character.
In London two respectable homieopathic hospitals
have been established within the past year under the
patronage and management of such men as the Duke
of Beaufort, the Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Robert
Grosvenor, and the Marquis of Anglesey. Other
hospitals have also been- ounded in several of the
larger towns of England under the auspices of the
most noble and -intelligent of the land. Numerous
dispensaries likewise distribute their blessings in
every quarter, and_ by their successes in practice,
contribute much towards the extension of the system.
In France, one of the most learned and intelligent
medical men of Paris, Dr. Tessier, physician to the
Hopital Sainte 2fazrguerite, (one of the hospitals connected with the Hlotel Z)ie:u, and containing one hundred beds,) after a careful preliminary study of the writings of Hahnemann, and a rigid practical investigation respecting their truth at the bedside of the sick,
for a period of more than two years, has publicly announced the vast superiority of this mode of practice
over the antiphlogistic measurbs of the Old School.
When it is known that the principal diseases treated
by Dr. Tessier were pneumonia (lung fever) and
cholera, the importance of the result will be better
appreciated.
With respect to' the gentleman himself, who has
thus been converted to Homceopathy, the simple fact
of his appointment to the post of physician to a hospital like that of Sainte Mlarguer~ite, proves the esti



CLERGYMEN ADOPTING HOMCEOPATHY.    143
mation put upon his talents while an allopathic practitioner, but now, as he has changed his opinions
uponi medical topics,'he will of course be clasaed
among the "deluded," "loose reasoning," "uneducated and irresponsible" followers'of Hahnemann.
In Austria, Russia, and several other countries of
continental Europe, well endowed homceopathic hospitals are in successful operation, and the practice is
everywhere extending'among the intelligent classes.
It is a fact eminently worthy of notice that the
patrons of Homceopathy are among the most intellectual and well-educated of every nation.
Dr. Hooker has chosen to refer in terms of reproach
to the clergy for the willingness they have evinced to
accept the doctrines of the philosophical school in
medicine, and he has expended besides abortive wit,
no inconsiderable amount of contumelious invective
against this class, which, to say nothing of the consideration in which it should be held, for its sacred
functions, embraces a larger amount of learning, talent,
and logical acumen, than. any other in the world.
We-may, confess that we are proud that the members
of a profession so intelligent, learned, and conscientious, have so generally examined and approved the
homceopathic theory, and adopted its practice; but
would it not have been'more appropriate for Dr.
Hooker to have discussed the more material'and important fact, that of the thoroughly educated, rightminided, and successfulpractitioners of the Old School,
so large a number have been converted to th6e doctrines of Hahnemann?  This is the exciting cause of
the indignation, jealousy, and mortification. of the



144       HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
allopathic practitioners, and for this they can offer
no plausible reason, except the apparent and overwhelming truth of our system.
We have hastily and imperfectly, yet we trust
satisfactorily answered the so-called " examinations"
of Dr. Worthington Hooker; and we think we have
shown him to be as deficient in common honesty and
conscience as he.is in a knowledge and fit judgment
of the true principles of cure. With a worthier
antagonist, and more time, we. might have entered
into a more elaborate, perhaps a more satisfactory
investigation of those great principles in medicine,
which are destined to have supreme acceptance and
the most satisfactory influence among the intelligent
classes of mankind.
For the present, we have, done.